AfghanistanAlbaniaAlgeriaAndorraAngolaAntigua and BarbudaArgentinaArmeniaAustraliaAustriaAzerbaijanBahamasBahrainBangladeshBarbadosBelarusBelgiumBelizeBeninBhutanBolivia (Plurinational State of)Bosnia and HerzegovinaBotswanaBrazilBrunei DarussalamBulgariaBurkina FasoBurundiCabo VerdeCambodiaCameroonCanadaCentral African RepublicChadChileChinaColombiaComorosCongoCosta RicaCôte D'IvoireCroatiaCubaCyprusCzech RepublicDemocratic People's Republic of KoreaDemocratic Republic of the CongoDenmarkDjiboutiDominicaDominican RepublicEcuadorEgyptEl SalvadorEquatorial GuineaEritreaEstoniaEswatiniEthiopiaEuropean UnionFijiFinlandFranceGabonGambia (Republic of The)GeorgiaGermanyGhanaGreeceGrenadaGuatemalaGuineaGuinea BissauGuyanaHaitiHondurasHungaryIcelandIndiaIndonesiaIran (Islamic Republic of)IraqIrelandIsraelItalyJamaicaJapanJordanKazakhstanKenyaKiribatiKuwaitKyrgyzstanLao People’s Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanonLesothoLiberiaLibyaLiechtensteinLithuaniaLuxembourgMadagascarMalawiMalaysiaMaldivesMaliMaltaMarshall IslandsMauritaniaMauritiusMexicoMicronesia (Federated States of)MonacoMongoliaMontenegroMoroccoMozambiqueMyanmarNamibiaNauruNepalNetherlandsNew ZealandNicaraguaNigerNigeriaNo bordersNon-UN Member StateNorth MacedoniaNorwayOmanPakistanPalauPanamaPapua New GuineaParaguayPeruPhilippinesPolandPortugalQatarRepublic of KoreaRepublic of MoldovaRomaniaRussian FederationRwandaSaint Kitts and NevisSaint LuciaSaint Vincent and the GrenadinesSamoaSan MarinoSao Tome and PrincipeSaudi ArabiaSenegalSerbiaSeychellesSierra LeoneSingaporeSlovakiaSloveniaSolomon IslandsSomaliaSouth AfricaSouth SudanSpainSri LankaSudanSurinameSwedenSwitzerlandSyrian Arab RepublicTajikistanThailandTimor-LesteTogoTongaTrinidad and TobagoTunisiaTurkeyTurkmenistanTuvaluUgandaUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern IrelandUnited Republic of TanzaniaUnited States of AmericaUruguayUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofViet NamYemenZambiaZimbabweGlobalIndependentIntergovernmentalMember StateSub-NationalStage 1Stage 2Stage 3Stage 4Area of divergenceDiscussion topic outcomeMain findingsMajor focusAction Track 1: Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for allAction Track 2: Shift to sustainable consumption patternsAction Track 3: Boost nature-positive productionAction Track 4: Advance equitable livelihoodsAction Track 5: Build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stressData & EvidenceEnvironment and ClimateFinanceGovernanceHuman rightsInnovationPolicyTrade-offsWomen & Youth Empowerment2021-01-08 23:34:30204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/1696/88

1257105121557025431511821065245731463108

Indonesia is an archipelago with 17,000 islands, over 600 ethnic groups and 269 million people. The Independent Dialogue is one session in a 3-day Youth Leadership Camp for Climate Crisis (YLCCC) focusing on Food Systems. Participants came from all over Indonesia where we have 3 time zones. Topics covered at YLCCC provided information as the basis for the Independent Dialogue, including the climate crisis and its solutions, the tragedy of the commons, carbon foot print in food and agriculture sector, international agreements (UNFCCC, UNCBD, SDGs), farming and agricultural practices for selected commodities, climate smart eating, leadership and communications and youth activities. At the Dialogue Session we presented the Summit principles and objectives, followed by adducers explaining about computerized data of Indonesian traditional foods and drinks, and practices of healthy traditional food catering. Participants then continued with breakout rooms for discussions of several topics.ACT WITH URGENCY: We informed participants that the Dialogue provides input to Summit. Also that Mr. Guterres, the UNSG stated that food is a common thread that connects all 17 SDGs (to be achieved in 2030). COMMIT TO THE SUMMIT: We discussed the process of the Summit, including Action Tracks, and the three dialogues (global, member states, independent). BE RESPECTFUL: We appreciate traditional foods, and identified aspects of health, environment, livelihood, and cultures. RECOGNIZE COMPLEXITY: We provided sessions prior to the independent dialogue, that will help participants understand the complexity EMBRACE MULTI-STAKEHOLDER: Our participants are those showing interests in the food systems representing the variety of professions and locations COMPLEMENT THE WORK OF OTHERS: In addition to the sessions prior to the dialogue, participants refer to previous works supporting their opinions BUILD TRUST:. We discussed the transparency of the summit process and information platformsDialogues have to be prepared beforehand, preferably through PRE-SESSIONS of related topics with potential participants, as the process is quite complex for those who are not used to the system. This is important as the Food Systems Summit is a People's Summit. We expect people from all walks of life will participate.Through pre-sessions participants will understand the administrative process as well as technical information related to the Summit and they then can make informed opinions. It is also important to map the food ecosystems related to the topic of the dialogue, so that convenors can invite resource persons to support the dialogue. We would also suggest to open communication with participants even after the dialogue is over so as to have more insights from participants.

Yes

234OUR DIALOGUE IS FOR ACTION TRACK 2, AND WE DISCUSSED THE FOLLOWING: 1. Food production activities / practices in dialogue participants' areas (urban or rural), both traditional and modern Traditional practices.wisdoms are sometimes more environmental friendly compared to modern practices. 2. Varieties of vegetables are in participants area, and what kinds of traditional dishes are best known for these vegetables. Identifying this will help promote plant-based meals which are lower in carbon emission compared to animal-based meals. 3. Non-rice carbohydrates in participants area, as well as the types of dishes available, and the ingredients used. As in most Asian countries Indonesia is too dependent on rice, where in many cases people eat rice 3 times a day. Shortage of rice can create social unrest. Whereas there are a number of non-rice carbohydrates available in the country. 4. Eating patterns that pay attention to health and are also environmentally friendly 5. Empowering consumers to make informed, healthy, safe and sustainable food choices235We have to preserve local traditional foods and drinks and encourage sustainable consumption of such foods. They are healthier, local, and more environmental friendly, have low carbon foot prints, and provide livelihood for producers and distributors. Also we have to encourage non-rice for carbohydrate consumption. It is important to identify and map the ingredients, cooking method, culture, recipes, traditions, and health benefits of certain foods. Indonesia has at least 100 types of carbohydrate sources, 100 kinds of nuts, 250 kinds of vegetables and 450 kinds of fruits. A mapping of Indonesian traditional foods and drinks showed that there are at least 35,000 types identified, and the number is still counting. We propose two solutions to facilitate consumer access to healthy and sustainable traditional foods, a macro and micro approach. In a macro approach, the state/government is important in increasing consumer access to healthy and sustainable traditional foods. The state can promote healthy and sustainable traditional foods through policies, programs, promotion, building relevant infrastructure, and to reduce the distance traveled during the distribution of traditional foods to minimize carbon footprint In a micro approach, the community as an agent of information dissemination can disseminate the positive impact of healthy and sustainable traditional food. After that, people can also provide places that provide the food to be distributed to those in the surrounding environment. . It is important to provide education and information to consumers regarding local food products, the health benefits, the processing methods and food safety of local food products, through an attractive and easy-to-understand physical and digital display *social media). Food gardens should be encouraged in communities, government offices, schools and university campuses along with education about local food through planting, harvesting, and cooking together.236VEGETABLES We have to identify edible vegetables and dishes that can be created from those vegetables, and promote them through education, policies and programs, to encourage healthy plant-based food consumption. In Indonesia the combined consumption of fruits and vegetables is 209.89 grams/capita/day. WHO generally recommends the consumption of vegetables and fruits for a healthy life of 400 grams/person/day, consisting of 250 grams of vegetables and 150 grams of fruit (equivalent to 3 fruits. When compared with food expenditure, the total expenditure on fruit and vegetables in Indonesia is only 11.41 percent. Kangkong (water cress/morning glory) is the most consumed vegetable commodity at the national level, which is 10.46 grams per capita a day. Then, spinach and eggplant were the second and third most consumed vegetable commodities, namely 9.26 grams and 7.76 grams per capita a day, respectively. Participants identified all kinds of vegetables and dishes to be promoted. As an example Pohpohan (Pilea trinervia) is a commercial vegetable crop and is indigenous with great potential to be developed. This plant also contains antioxidant compounds, fiber, and vitamins can provide benefits for human health. Indegenous / traditional vegetables need to be introduced so that they can be accepted by many. In addition, it is necessary to carry out pohpohan plant conservation activities so that the utilization can be maintained in a sustainable manner. A healthy egetable dish called Trancam contains cucumber, bean sprouts, basil, and spiced shredded coconut which are the key to the specialty of this food. Kesum (Polygonum minus Huds) is a plant endemic to West Kalimantan. Kesum plants are known as a substitute for MSGs and used in soups and other dishes, giving umami taste. Bamboo shoots can be processed into vegetables and ingredients for chips/crackers. Adding bamboo shoots to crackers making can improve organoleptic characteristics (color, aroma, texture, and taste)236NON-RICE CARBOHYDRATES Indonesia has at least 100 types of carbohydrates sources. With high biodiversity, Indonesia also has high food diversity. The sources of carbohydrates that the body needs should not only be fulfilled with rice. Several regions in Indonesia consume non-rice carbohydrates such as corn, sago, cassava, taro, potatoes and various tubers beat the popularity of rice in daily meals. Non-rice carbohydrates can be found in almost all corners of Indonesia. Because of this, each region has various ways and cultures to process these food sources. These foods are also plant-based complex carbohydrates that can go a long way in reducing the carbon footprint. This is appropriate if measured from biological reasons. In the economic structure, what we need to pay attention to is the contribution of carbon emissions from the supply chain. As distribution and production will obviously produce a lot of carbon, what we can do is try to grow food in our areas. The government and communities need to diversify food sources in an effort to fulfill diversify carbohydrates sources. Some of these alternative are barley, processed sago and palm sugar, elephant foot yam/stink lily, various processed cassava products, and tapioca cakes. Furthermore, these alternative sources of carbohydrates must be promoted and intensified strategically through several effective steps, from providing training and knowledge for local food producers to providing a special place for the sale of local processed food as a substitute for rice.236HEALTHY EATING 1. A diet that takes health into account is what ensures nutrition. It is better to take foods from nature and reduce processed food. In addition, education is also needed for food producers to maintain food hygiene and sanitation during food processing to ensure health. 2. An environmentally friendly diet is one that does not have a large carbon footprint. This diet can be achieved by: a. Paying attention to locality, naturalness, and type of product (reduce consumption of animal products, prioritize more carbon-friendly vegetable products). b. Reducing food waste and plastic packaging that is not environmentally friendly c. Guarantee the totality of the full use of food ingredients so that food loss does not occur. d. Processing of kitchen waste in the form of compost and replanting. e. To maintain food sustainability, it is necessary to pay attention to locality. We need to explore food ingredients that are widely developed in our area and diversify food sources. 3. In order for all levels of society to be involved for a diet that takes into account health and is environmentally friendly, education is needed starting from the pre-production, processing, to marketing stages. Education is carried out to producers, distributors, and consumers.236EMPOWER CONSUMERS TO MAKE INFORMED, HEALTHY, SAFE AND SUSTAINABLE FOOD CHOICES An empowered society is a society that knows, is willing and able to make a change. There is a change of habit to make a society empowered. Lack of education regarding food is also the main cause because the average person who gets sufficient education tends to be more aware of this problem. The government is also aware of this by launching the Healthy Community Movement. Empowering consumers to make informed, healthy, safe and sustainable food choices can start with product branding, to create healthy food, especially sustainable local production, it is necessary to educate producers who are adapted to the local socio-culture about the importance of transparency and low emission food production. Starting from raw materials with low emissions, the production process from upstream to downstream also needs attention to implement an environmentally friendly process. Transparent production processes are used as one approach towards consumers so that consumers can choose healthy, safe, halal, and sustainable food. Manufacturers also need to increase honesty and responsibility in the production, sales and promotion processes. It is also important to have Informative and interactive smart food packaging that is easy to understand, to provide information on nutritional value, product processing flow, and the quality of food ingredients contained in packages such as level of maturity, and product freshness. Providers of facilities / platforms are needed to enable local communities to access healthy and sustainable food items, such as bulk stores, recycling stores, and uglyfood. Also important to provide facilities for communities to purchase as well as self educate about environmentally friendly products.237Indonesia is such a large country, there are so many options to choose from in terms of processes and products, and potential resources to support the Summit's Objectives. Different regions prefer different processes to be pursued.

2021-01-20 21:22:39204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/1081/203

83860141344971813431229312922126121633171

The dialogue was constructed to contribute to current initiatives in the region. The use of discussion groups was extremely useful for participants to share experiences, add value to their work whilst complementing the work of others. Trust was built by highlighting that every participant can express their own voice, as diverse views are essential for a discussion. The Chatham house rule was applied and explained to build trust among participants in the discussion groups. It is recommended to other convenors to take the time to understand the complexity and contexts of the region or locality where the dialogue is held. In the case of Latin America, it was found to be key to take into account the multi-lingual context of the region. Furthermore, to ensure diverse and active discussion, building trust is highly recommended by emphasizing that different views are encouraged.Principles for Engagement of the Food Systems Summit Urgency: We recognize the utmost urgency of sustained and meaningful action at all levels to reach the respective 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. Respect: Within our respective capacities and circumstances, we will promote food production and consumption policies and practices that strive to protect and improve the health and well-being of individuals, enhance resilient livelihoods and communities, and promote good stewardship of natural resources, while respecting local cultures and contexts. Complexity: We recognize that food systems are complex, and are closely connected to, and significantly impact, human and animal health, land, water, climate, biodiversity, the economy and other systems, and their transformation requires a systemic approach. Multi-stakeholder inclusivity: We support inclusive multi-stakeholder processes and approaches within governments and communities that bring in diverse perspectives, including indigenous knowledge, cultural insights, and science-based evidence to enable stakeholders to understand and assess potential trade-offs and to design policy options that deliver against multiple public goods across these various systems. Engage: We commit to practice what we preach personally and professionally to contribute to the vision, objectives and the final outcomes of the Food Systems Summit. Complement the work of others: Recognizing that issues related to food systems are being addressed through several other global governance processes, we will seek to ensure that the Food Systems Summit aligns with, amplifies, and accelerates these efforts where practicable, avoiding unnecessary duplication, while encouraging bold and innovative new thinking and approaches that deliverThe topics used for the dialogue are in line with the action tracks and cross-cutting levers of the Food System Summit. These topics represent the urgency needed for transition and are constructed to deliver actions to transform Latin American food production and consumption in order to reach the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) by 2030. The discussed topics covered a wide range of domains (finance, nature, nutrition, society, gender, etc.) to understand the complexity about the transformation of food systems in the region. The complexity per topic was further elaborated by the connection to four themes: 1) Climate Change, 2) Nature Loss, 3) Covid-19 recovery and 4) the context of the region (social, political, geographical). The possibility for participants to listen to either English, Spanish or Portuguese was a way to acknowledge the diversity of Latin America. The use of the multi-lingual approach ensured respect to local cultures and their contexts. The participants were allocated to discussion groups based on their experience and preferred language to encourage active engagement. The multi-lingual approach contributed to multi-stakeholder inclusivity across the region from different sectors (academia, research, business, NGO, farmers and youth). The multi-stakeholder inclusivity was stimulated by personal invites from the convenors, Bayer and CCAFS, to contacts in the region.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245247248250251The most important factor brought up multiple times is the strong need for alliances between science, the private- and public sectors, farmers and other key actors to create a sustainable and resilient food system. To improve trust and create strong partnerships, transparency is stressed as essential. With the use of these alliances, stakeholders can align their programs, initiatives and experiences. Creating platforms for the exchanges of methodologies and experiences between different sectors and countries can contribute to the alignment of these programs and to the strengthening of the alliances. Sharing experiences will help in bringing actions and innovations to scale and generate economic incentives through innovation systems. Innovation is essential in order to stop converting natural lands, limit the use of water resources to produce food and minimize the loss of natural ecosystems. To accelerate sustainable innovation, investments are key to provide farmers access to new technologies and assistances, for which funding pathways should be established. Additionally, local value chains should be strengthened together with relations between producers and consumers to enhance healthy and nutritious diets. The inclusion and empowerment of women and youth in Latin America food systems is key to address the generational change issue. Agriculture should be visualized as an opportunity for young people to create their own pathway. Furthermore, education and communication campaigns are emphasized as important pathways to raise awareness among youth. Reducing inequality between men and women is of major importance which can be achieved by ensuring equal payment. It was found that trade-offs are important and should be addressed more. Measuring progress is still hard and therefore indicators or monitoring and evaluation systems should be implemented or improved to measure progress and success.235240241242244245246247248249251Business as usual is no longer sustainable, particularly in the light of the pressures of Covid-19. Therefore, more synergy and public-private partnerships are key in order to create a sustainable and resilient food systems in Latin America. Game changing solutions are needed which should reach all stakeholders and deliver multifaceted benefits for society including healthier diets and reducing inequalities at demographic level and in value chains. Innovation should be brought to scale in order to reach the SDGs. To empower actions at scale, place policies, regulations and incentives are needed which enable a sustainable recovery at regional level. Innovative solutions and technical assistance should be able to reach farmers and be delivered in partnership with the private sector. To stimulate investment from the private sector, good examples should be measured and reported as evidence of success. Additionally, a distribution mechanism is needed to ensure equitable value distribution all the way down to the farmers. To ensure the future vision of food systems, a generational change of producers is needed by empowering and including youth and women; ensuring equal payment and raising awareness is essential. Partnerships are essential in bringing diverse food systems stakeholders closer along the whole food chain through innovative partnership models which enable action. Stakeholders should step out of different siloes to ensure integration and cooperation between different sectors and enable their alignment. Strong partnerships require transparency and interdisciplinary communication. Different solutions are required for the diversity of the food systems in Latin America with its wide range of products and producers. These solutions already exist for different contexts; however, they need to be scaled up through investments and policies. The diverse region should find a unified voice by doing these kinds of dialogues. The Food Systems Summit is a key opportunity to articulate the regional vision, innovations, actions and partnerships on the global stage.236240243244248To stop agriculture from impacting critical ecosystems we should no longer convert lands, use water resources unsustainably or modify the natural ecosystem to produce food. Hereby, science should take the role of translating and bringing science-based solutions to farmers through technical assistance. Farmers will be empowered by providing access to new simple technologies that include scientific and traditional information to ensure food and nutritional security while maintaining cultural diversity.236238243247249To address malnutrition and obesity, a standard should be created to inform consumers about nutrition and establish social protection policies to secure nutrition levels. Besides, policies need to address food costs, as this is a huge barrier to nutritious food access for all members of society in Latin America.236240242243244248Besides, promoting local markets can enhance greenhouse gas emission reductions. To achieve 50% reductions in food loss, improving and increasing technologies, logistics and innovation are found essential. Alliances should be promoted along the whole food chain supported by transparency, interdisciplinary communication and promoting the use of scientific information in regulation.236241245246248249251Actions to provide end-to-end solutions to transform food systems should include access to healthy food, consider young people in agriculture, strengthen local supply chains and economic incentives through innovation systems. To unlock sustainable finance, a distribution mechanism is needed to ensure equitable value distribution all the way down to the farmers. Working hand by hand with the private, public sector and civil society, as well as the establishment of sound regulations and policies will create an enabling environment for money to flow into the region.236241243246249251Actions to engage young people in science-based social movements include raising awareness by visualizing the potential future of food systems through education and exposure on social media platforms. In order to close the gender gap, access to family care and child support are essential to enable women to work in agriculture. Other enabling factors are reinforcing women networks, equal payment for men and women ensured by the private sector and recognizing women for their work.237238239240241242243244249250251a) The presence and importance of ecosystems services (carbon market) need to be clarified and emphazised more in food systems. Considering ecosystem services is crucial in Latin America due to its vast diversity of ecosystems. b) Areas that need further exploration are addressing trade-offs and developing ways to measure progress. Moreover, the different stakeholders should be linked to specific actions to pin down responsibilities. It remains unclear what is expected form the younger generation, what is specifically meant by the younger generation (current or future) and what their potential jobs will include in the future. c) Practices needed for food system sustainability include equitable value distribution along the whole food chain as well as between genders. Furthermore, critical ecosystems should be maintained, restored and further protected from the possible impacts of agriculture. Besides, the transformation of the food system should deliver healthy and nutritious diets for everybody in Latin America. d) Policies and incentives need to be tailored to the different types of farmers that we find in the region in order to enable the transition towards a more sustainable food system. Additionally, especially the link and partnership between science, the public- and the private sector should be prioritized, as well as the link between producers and consumers.

2021-01-21 15:10:04204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/2711/203

340

1. We organized the dialogue with urgency, aiming for the findings to feed into the FSS. 2. Our discussions focused on solutions following Chatham House riles while recognizing the complex issues surrounding agri-SME finance and food systems. 3. We shared detailed information about the summit with participants beforehand, enabling them to better understand how they may contribute to it through these dialogues. 4. We generally followed the dialogue format proposed by the Reference Manual, including an opening/introductory session, small group discussions and a reflection session including reporting from discussion groups.

Yes

234241245On 11 January 2021, SAFIN partners held a "Food Systems Dialogue," as the first contribution of the network to the preparatory process for the UN Food Systems Summit (FSS) to be held in September. The objectives of the dialogue were to: • Allow SAFIN partners to be well informed about the FSS, so they can reflect on what opportunities and expectations this brings for the network; • Reach clarity about why and how agri-SME finance most fits into the FSS agenda, so that the network can focus its engagement and develop a compelling narrative around it; • Identify 2-3 priority issues or challenges in agri-SME finance that are critical to address in order to achieve impact in the FSS Action Tracks; • Brainstorm about 2-3 potential "game-changing" actions around these issues or challenges. In line with the standard structure of Food Systems Dialogue, the event started with a framing presentation (an overview of the Summit process and intended outcomes by Alison Cairns, Partnership Lead in the Summit Secretariat) and then moved into two interactive breakout sessions facilitated by Kindra Halvorson (Technoserve) and Brian Milder (Aceli Africa and CSAF). Both breakout groups discussed the top challenges in agri-SME finance that should be addressed in order to transform food systems in line with the FSS Action Tracks, and the top "game-changing actions" that could be launched around the Summit to address these challenges at scale.235241245Summary of outcomes The top challenges identified by network participants in both groups fell under four headings: 1. Limited bankable demand on the agri-SME side. This includes: a. limited capacity (particularly in terms of business management) of individual entrepreneurs and companies b. market-level factors that affect agri-SME bankability (e.g. fragmentation of farmers, high transaction costs of doing business in rural areas, value chain malfunctioning, lack of business development service models that work well at scale). 2. Limited capacity to engage with agri-SMEs among financial institutions. This includes: a. limited capacity or willingness to engage with agri-SMEs for some types of institutions (due to lack of understanding of the market, risk factors, etc.) b. lack of proper segmentation of the agri-SME market and, consequently, clear asset classes in this market c. ill-suited product offerings (particularly among traditional financial institutions) d. processes of client acquisition and client management with high transaction costs 3. Limited capacity of agri-SMEs and finance providers to address new environment or climate-related challenges or to tap into climate finance and the sustainable investors’ market. a. Environmental and climate pressures bring new risks and costs for many agri-SMEs (including for compliance with new standards etc.), but only a fraction of public and private finance for climate mitigation and adaptation goes to agri-SMEs b. Many finance providers are ill-prepared to design and issue investment products for to green/sustainable investors to deploy in agriculture, nor do they easily access or have capacity to manage funds from public sources of green finance for this sector 4. Policy and coordination gaps. This includes: a. political interference or policy gaps (e.g. at Central Bank level) b. lack of coordination, information gaps and information asymmetries among different actors in the agri-finance ecosystem c. lack of convergence around shared standards, e.g. concerning effective business development services or agri-SME bankability. The proposed "game-changing" actions that the Summit could help launch or amplify/scale were: 1. A clear recognition by governments of the key roles of agri-SMEs in delivering against various public goods related to food systems and commitment to reward the positive development externalities generated by agri-SMEs through their business models. 2. A multi-actor initiative to bring more transparency into the business development service market for agri-SMEs, including an evidence-based benchmarking of effective models against impact on access to finance, an effort to standardize BDS curricula on the basis of such benchmarking, and value-for-money metrics for funders of such services. 3. One or more large-scale regional risk reduction facilities (e.g. risk capital pools plus technical assistance) to mobilize regional commercial capital, including long-term, patient investors’ capital, for regional (local currency) investments for agri-SMEs (particular focus on Africa). 4. A platform targeting agri-SME users with information about the universe of potential investors in their markets, their product and services offering, their bankability requirements, and their potential suitability to each company's growth stage. 5. A shared international reference framework on the use of blended finance for agri-SME investments in a “food system transformation” context, allowing evidence-based decisions about where to focus “subsidy” to leverage private capital for agri-SMEs, how to phase it out and how to assess additionality in agri-SME finance from a holistic food system standpoint. 6. An international platform or programme to: a) support innovation in digital technology and in business models applying digital solutions to agri-SME finance, b) address barriers to scale for business models with scale potential, c) roll out digital solutions among a broad community of financial institutions serving agri-SMEs, focusing on solutions that reduce the costs of acquiring smaller clients, managing risk, and achieving positive environmental/climate impact.

2021-01-25 08:28:57205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/2549/39

4842716133141132111822513264

The SUN Networks provided the main means for ensuring diversity in this preliminary exercise. During the training and selection of Facilitators and recorders we encouraged women to participate and will continue to do this. The Involvement of civil society representatives and business network representatives will open the doorway for wider inclusivity. Participation of government staff from a range of ministries was intended to capture their interest and to show the relevance of food systems across a range of ministries. 'I would like to deeply thank you for your training session for the Cambodia Food Systems Dialogues held via Zoom on Monday 18 Jan 2021.This session is very important for current Cambodia society and the first time for me.' Mr. Pen Norakvuth, Deputy General Director of the National Social Security FundUrgency: We moved as quickly as possible towards commencing dialogue activities so as to give maximum time for us to make progress with the dialogues. The need to move quickly is understood by our core team and this reflects the urgency for actions to improve understanding and strengthen food systems. Commitment: by moving forward with this process, explaining the dialogue and giving opportunities to participate we are securing commitment. The activation of government representatives by CARD and the harnessing of the SUN Movement in Cambodia has been critical for this initial commitment. Respect: our dialogue reflects some hierarchical procedures that are consistent with social norms for respect in Cambodia. This norms are very important to communication and especially for multi-sectoral, multi-stakeholder processes. The team is skilled in dealing with formal protocols. In addition, the breakout rooms provided for less formal interactions and the Facilitators were responsible for respecting and encouraging the opinions of all involved in these smaller groups. Inclusivity at this stage was limited and more emphasis will be placed on inclusivity as the process unrolls. Nonetheless, the preliminary dialogue brought in representatives from government, donors, UN, civil society and business. Building Trust: this principle was very important for the event, with the trust of the core team growing in the process and in each other and for the participants to trust that the multi-sectoral process does not threaten their sectoral direction and control.It is important to think about these principles in planning the events and setting the agenda. One of the strongest ways for embedding these principles is for the teams involved in the presentation of dialogue events to embody those principles in their own actions. we can do this by encouraging participants to speak freely and by showing we value their inputs and offer opportunities to make their opinions heard. The trust created in the small group setting is the real opportunities for these principles to be brought to life. Be sure to invest time in training and practicing your facilitators in facilitation skills.

Yes

234238239240241242246This event was primarily to practice our team in all the process of the dialogue and to discover our limitations and capabilities. This was our first experience in conducting a zoom meeting with separate breakout rooms and plenary sessions. The dialogue itself sought participants feedback on a draft vision for sustainable food systems in Cambodia in 2030. The participants were given complete freedom to comment on what sort of elements should be in the vision, using the draft simply as a reference point if they needed ideas to react to. The second and more detailed part of the dialogue was to suggest ways that we can move forward towards that vision. These ideas will continue to be developed over the whole course of the national dialogue in readiness for the summit. The draft vision presented was: By 2030, Cambodian food systems will ensure access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food for all Cambodians, enabling sustainable production and consumption patterns, a balance between long term productivity and the conservation of natural resources, promoting equitable livelihoods and inclusiveness and resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stresses. Several amendments to the vision or points of clarification were suggested. These included a long standing difficulty in understanding the meaning of access; whether affordability is included in the concept of access to food and whether information about food is considered under access. Other points raised were for more emphasis to be placed on healthy diets and consumer information, that the trade-offs implicit in increasing productivity and conserving resources and between food crops and agro-industry should be more explicit and that we need more detail on how the poor and vulnerable are to be included.235238239240241242246Whilst no specific commitments were made in the course of this dialogue, by moving forwards with the event, there has been specific request to join in the dialogue process, including from branches of government, UN agencies, civil society representatives and other individuals. The event has help spark a new list of participants and topics of interest for ongoing dialogue. The participants .recognised that it will be useful to increase understanding and awareness of the food systems and how we relate to it. The discussion heightened issues for some parties who felt that food systems are not relevant to their interests and revealed the depth of the divisions between some sectors and interests. The challenge for engaging the many parts of the food system and highlighting interconnectedness was clear. For some areas, involvement with systems discussion is not appealing because they prefer to remain within limited mandates and specialised areas of interest. This is an ongoing challenge and reflects a history of sectoral thinking in education, governance and management.236238239242244246248249What can we do to reach our vision for sustainable food systems for Cambodia 2030? Keep a focus on healthy diets and healthy diet should be a part of the national curriculum. Providing information to consumers on how to make sustainable and healthy choices on the food they buy and consume is important. The political will to change is a prerequisite. We must also ensure that all parties, including the private sector work in unity. Increased investments in education and research and innovation are critical for shaping the future of the food system. A food systems approach is important for achieving the vision. When we talk about sustainable food systems it is an opportunity to talk about everything that has to do with the food we want to eat, from supply chain, to consumer environment, to how food is prepared etc. Cross-cutting issues are very important. Waste is another very important issue. Consider economic, environmental, social and cultural dimensions of the food system. Cambodia was quite resilient during COVID-19 in terms of food supply, and we can learn lessons from that regarding sustainable consumption patterns. More work required to build resilience for dealing with climate change and disaster management More opportunities required to disseminate information to people at different levels, like the market side. We have National Nutrition Day every year, but that targets specific people. We can make that event more open to the public and make it more enjoyable and reach down to sub-national level. Quality Assurance and Quality Control mechanisms required for food, through each point of the food system (including the production and use of ingredients, growing, processing, packaging, production, selling and consumption). One element missing is the responsibility in terms of the market to provide information, for increased market monitoring and information sharing. Market regulations should be enforced.. Social assistance is very interesting. School feeding schemes and cash transfers for the poor during COVID-19 improve food access. We could discuss further the social protection/social assistance on offer in Cambodia and how this affects the food system. This could be critical for resilience? While there was no food shortage during the pandemic, studies show that people are more in debt and this can affect nutrition. It is important to take a life cycle approach (include elderly, young children, disability, and youth etc.) and design programmes for those special groups. The private sector and the SMEs are very important partners for moving towards sustainable food systems, especially in the development of food processing and packaging. The sub-national platforms should be scaled up to provide a platform for different sectors to come together regarding nutrition. Food systems is a relatively new idea for everyone, and it is important to bring different departments into action. While the dialogue is driven at the national level, including stakeholders from all departments is key and the next step is to bring this to the sub-national level. All levels to be involved in information dissemination to reach to the community. Cross-sectoral coordination is vital for creating access to nutritious food and to alleviate poverty. The road map should include cross-sectoral working systems at the local level? It is difficult for people’s voice to be heard, so this is important to create equal access. Especially when it comes to infrastructure, such as water systems, necessary for allowing good nutrition.236238240244249A vision for sustainable food systems for Cambodia 2030 Draft Vision By 2030, Cambodian food systems will ensure access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food for all Cambodians, enabling sustainable production and consumption patterns, a balance between long term productivity and the conservation of natural resources, promoting equitable livelihoods and inclusiveness and resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stresses. Comments: The demand for healthy food from the consumer’s perspective should be pointed out more. Rather than just looking into supply, we should also look into demands for healthy diets and how that could be included. The concept of food sovereignty should be included in the vision. This means that people can access and consume healthy and culturally appropriate food that is produced without harm to the environment. the vision should be that people can consume a healthy diet and have choice. The word ‘access’ is vague – does it refer to affordability, availability to materials if one wants a home garden, etc. It should be elaborated what ‘access’ means as it could mean different things to different people. For access, information is also very important. People can have the food but without access to information there is still a problem. When we think about access to food, we must include consideration of the poor, minorities and migrants. We want to see more of a focus on healthy diets and the consumer information side of things. People often don’t have enough education/information on the topic and this should be expressed somewhere. Sharing knowledge of agriculture is important, including food safety. Conservation of natural resources (perspective from working in Preah Vihear) could be conflicting with livelihoods, as many people depend on natural resources for their livelihoods. There should be a balance of agro-industrial production for export and local production for local demand237240241244250Conservation of natural resources (perspective from working in Preah Vihear) could be conflicting with livelihoods, as many people depend on natural resources for their livelihoods. There should be a balance of agro-industrial production for export and local production for local demand

2021-01-28 21:17:49207https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/1234/203

95852272514410511713185111371528233135181169

The organizing team paid careful attention to inclusivity by striving for invite individuals from diverse stakeholder groups, sectors, gender, and countries. This entailed going through various iterations of the invitation list, each convening institution drawing on their respective networks. Facilitators were selected with and briefed with care, to ensure they create a space for dialogue that is conducive to respect and trust. The discussion topics were designed to complement the exchanges and work carried out under the Sustainable Food Systems Programme, and captured multiple aspects and perspectives of food systems so as to embrace their complexity. Discussion topics also aimed to focus attention on some of the most complex, or contentious issues.The Dialogue reflected the principles of complexity, respect and trust as planned for the design. Discussions in the groups were open and enriching for participants. The principle of inclusivity was not as strong as had been aimed for in the design phase, due to the fact not all those invited registered, and of those who registered, not all attended. The majority of participants were from North American and Europe and there were few youth. Despite this limitation, participants appreciated interacting with individuals and institutions they had never met or heard of before. All participants embraced the principle of “acting with urgency”, recognizing the important of accelerating the pace of change in their recommendations and demonstrating commitment to act. All were committed to contribute to the Food Systems Summit preparation and follow-up, recognizing it is an important milestone to catalyse further action on food systems.It is important to pay utmost attention to the composition – namely diversity of the invitation list – and to plan for the fact that not all invited will attend. Furthermore, in the case of international online events, the “no-response”/“no-show” is likely to be higher amongst individuals who live in low income countries where access to and the reliability of internet may be more challenging. It can therefore be useful to invite more individuals from these regions to ensure they are well represented during the event itself. It is also very important to select and brief the facilitators carefully to ensure they are not pushing their own agenda but creating a space for all to express themselves and listen to each other. Finally, formulating the discussion topics so that they point to critical issues will help avoid rather superficial conclusions that stop at common areas of consensus.

Yes

234238239240241243244245246249250This Dialogue was the first Global Food Systems Summit Dialogue. It was organized alongside the Sustainable Food Systems Programme Conference. The UN One Planet Network’s Sustainable Food Systems Programme (SFSP) is a multi-stakeholder partnership focused on catalyzing more sustainable food consumption and production patterns. SFSP Partners collaborate on joint initiatives, which range from normative, advocacy and policy support activities, to research and development projects as well as on-the-ground implementation activities that address our food systems challenges. The Programme promotes a holistic approach, taking into account the interconnections and trade-offs between all elements and actors in food systems. This context provided a good opportunity to conduct an overview of some of the major challenges faced for making food systems sustainable and equitable. Participants exchanged views about 9 discussion topics which explored the roles key stakeholders can play in making food systems sustainable: from those involved in producing, supplying foods and consuming foods – namely food producers, small and medium enterprises and consumers – to the public and private institutions which can create an environment conducive to sustainable production and consumption. The 9 discussion topics were: 1. Farmers and food producers lead the way to sustainable and equitable food systems by participating in the formulation of policies that impact them; they are supported and celebrated. 2. Small and medium enterprises thrive as drivers of sustainable local food systems - innovating, creating employment, partnering and providing healthy foods to local consumers. 3. Agrobiodiversity: Agriculture and land use strategies protect and promote agro-biodiversity and stimulate local food production, providing sustainable livelihoods and healthy diets for all. 4. Consumers worldwide have shifted to more conscious and sustainable consumption patterns, within planetary boundaries, in line with nutritional recommendations. 5. Science and Policy: Policies, actions and investments in sustainable food systems are informed by science that promotes a systems approach, appreciates impacts beyond individual sectors, and builds on traditional knowledge. 6. Governance/ Multi-stakeholder collaboration - Innovative governance and incentives at all levels foster cross-sectoral collaboration across policy areas (e.g. biodiversity, climate change, health, trade, etc). 7. Investments: Responsible and accessible investments in sustainable and equitable food systems by financial institutions and private investors are the norm. 8. Public Procurement: Governments at all levels make maximum use of their leverage power to bring about sustainable food systems transformation through procurement. 9. Policy coherence: Interlinkages and trade-offs between policy areas (e.g. agriculture, environment, health, nutrition, etc.) are actively managed through holistic and coherent food systems policies that catalyze joint action.235238239240241243244245246248249250251The discussions were animated and rich. Participants appreciated the fact they were interacting with individuals and institutions they did not know. Some appreciated the possibility to address difficult questions and “elephants in the room”. Connections in the groups generated enthusiasm and strengthened the urgency to act. Significant energy emerged as groups shared highlights of their exchanges in plenary. One group even called to bring the power of love in decision-making, reminding all that food is also “feeling, culture and emotion”. The following themes emerged across the groups, demonstrating the inter-relations between topics: Strengthening the agency of small and medium food producers and suppliers Many emphasized the importance of strengthening the agency of those who are at the forefront of providing food. The support needed includes access to: training and higher level education; finance and insurance; markets, retailers and marketing strategies; technology and digital tools; capacities for reducing Food Loss and Waste (FLW) and sustainable intensification; and capacity to use evidence-based approaches. Investments in the post-COVID recovery provide an opportunity to support smallholders and SMEs, contributing to a “just transition”. Empowering consumers to be drivers of change Consumers need to be empowered with better information such as through food labels and eco-labels. We can build on successful campaigns (e.g. FLW reduction) and develop new tools for behaviour change. Addressing economic and social inequities Participants urged to address economic and social inequalities that poor producers and consumers face, stating that unless we do so “our solutions will only be band-aids”. Some asked “how can we structure the economic system into a more circular and less extractive system?” Investing in the “just transition” Several groups emphasized the importance of aligning public and private investments. Tools to measure externalities (positive and negative) should inform investments, and new financial tools adapted to smallholders, “agro-preneurs”, and SMEs should be developed – e.g. making smaller amounts of capital accessible locally. Investors and donors working in different sectors should come together. Repurposing subsidies and tackling agricultural reform was also highlighted. Public procurement can incentivize sustainable production and consumption, e.g. through sustainable school meals, which can address all SDGs. Participant discussed why public procurement is not used more and called for harmonizing definitions of sustainable public procurement and providing more guidance, including on reducing FLW. The leveraging power of sub-national governments in local economies was emphasized. Local action supported by national leadership Several groups recognized the struggle to reconcile global challenges and goals with the local reality. Subnational governments are key, in particular for revitalizing rural economies by investing in local employment, including in agriculture. Linkages between producers, retailers, consumers, researchers and cross-sectoral collaboration can be most effectively fostered at local level. Strong national leadership and coherent national policies also play a crucial role. Action guided by science and evidence All groups agreed science, data and evidence are key to guide and monitor action. Participants called for science to: be done and communicated in ways that are more usable for policy makers; bridge fields and address trade-offs and lock-ins; to democratize knowledge. The value of lived experience and traditional knowledge was also acknowledged. Some advocated for describing change in a way that connects to people’s emotions and incorporate emotion with data for decision-making. Dialogue and bringing people together as fundamental The importance of bringing stakeholders around the same table was part of all groups’ recommendations, e.g. through value chain roundtables (c.f. in Canada) and food councils . The term “trickle-down dialogues” was coined to get this conversation going from global to local level. Working with youth and bringing in under-represented groups is key. Some called for ensuring there is a direct line to concrete action and accountability. SDGs as the compass for measuring success, with a focus on the local level Many groups referred to the SDGs for assessing success. They emphasized the importance of focusing on the local level, both in terms of data collection and assessments of success, and of refining indicators (e.g. to include investment-related components). Participants saw the Food Systems Summit as a unique opportunity to catalyze collective action, innovation and leadership in all the areas described above.236238239240241243244245246248249250251Farmers and food producers lead the way to sustainable and equitable food systems by participating in the formulation of policies that impact them; they are supported and celebrated. The group identified the following action areas as essential to achieve impact: • Incentives: in order to create transformative change, farmers need to have the ability to get out of that which is locking them in (policy arrangements, financing, standards, market pressures). New incentives need to be created to reward farmers for producing health and sustainable food. • Support Smallholders: smallholder farmers and family farmers, in developing countries especially, must be supported in the areas of insurance policy and certification of their farm products. • Just transitions and farmer agency: In any transition there will be winners and losers. Just transition policies need to be put in place so that farmers are not unduly harmed. As farmers will bear the costs, farmers need to be given much more more voice and agency in the transition process. Creative strategies must be developed to align agriculture with investors’ and food companies’ net zero commitments. • Market access: Farmers should be supported in connecting to markets, through digitization and other strategies. • Youth: incentives should be developed to encourage youth to farm. • Improve livestock: We need to focus on how to make companies involved in this sector move forward significantly in terms of climate impact, antibiotic use, etc. • Pre-competitive co-operation: between companies to figure out how to lessen their impact and to find models to implement with farmers. • More dialogue between industry and farmers is key to move sustainability goals forward and meet targets. The group raised the questions: how can industry help to deal with farmer locks ins and incentives? How can industry help to educate consumers and create links between farmers and consumers? Divergence: • Livestock: Debates about meat eating become a “turf war” in food system conversations. Perhaps it is more generative to focus on how these systems should be improved. The group felt we could tell whether the actions listed above would be successful in the following ways: • By working directly with farmers on indicators around climate change, biodiversity; • If farmers continue to farm (rather than leaving the sector). • If governments come together at the Food Systems Summit to make sure farmers are incentivized through the correct policies and commitments. • If farmers are rewarded for enhancing ecosystem services (and other goals). • If farmers have agency to get out of lock-downs they are facing. The participants in the group were ready to contribute to this progress in the following ways: • By developing a tool to evaluate how individual companies are contributing to food system transformation and create accountability for companies that are lagging behind. • By having more difficult conversations, especially with regard to “elephants in the room.”236238239240241242243245246247248249250Small and medium enterprises thrive as drivers of sustainable local food systems - innovating, creating employment, partnering, and providing healthy and nutritious foods to local consumers Recommended priority actions: • Bring companies into the nutrition space - Healthy food should not come at a premium. Pricing needs to reflect externalities. Companies can play include nutritional values of foods, from soil to plate. More local food chains and improved circularity are needed. • Address economic and social inequalities - Need more attention to power and agency in the FS Summit agenda. Without addressing economic and social inequalities that poor producers and consumers face, solutions will only be band-aids. More attention to legal and policy frameworks on investment, trade and market power from the national to the global level (e.g. WTO) is needed. • Leverage the COVID crisis to enable SMEs to build back better – COVID will lead to more deaths from economic decline than the virus. The World Bank looks at the barriers SMEs face, e.g. finance, transport, policy. SMEs need better support to feed their products into the supply chain and be at the core of building back better. • Provide tools to support behaviour change (BC) - “You can’t change what you can’t measure”. Technology can support BC. Common responses for why food companies aren’t accelerating sustainability practices is that consumers are not ready. Evocco wants to use data about consumers to compile market reports for food industry players. • Make data driven approaches affordable for SMEs - SMEs do not have budgets for data and often lack an evidence-based approach. They need an innovation budget. • Financial tools - Governments and large companies need to think about blended financial tools and subsidies. Money needs to be on the table for SMEs to make necessary changes. We will know if we are successful: • By identifying healthy food indicators – e.g. ‘A food that is good for us and good for the planet’ – how can we engage people in the ‘power of love’. We want leading, positive reinforcement. • Through focus on evidence and measurement - The Ceres2030 project, shows the importance of reviewing the evidence and quantifying how much and where spending is needed. The FS Summit should champion the call for better assessments of food systems problems and quantify the costs of solving them. Difficulty comes when moving from concrete to less tangible measurements. New technologies need to be leveraged to support evidence building. Areas of divergence: • Local v Global difference needs to be addressed. Evidence and analysis are required to address trade-offs and enable change. Decision-making needs to move from the global to local level. The current system blocks local action. Use the ‘power of love’ – change needs to be described in a way that connects to people’s emotions. Incorporate emotion with data for decision making. Some ideas about what is least environmentally impactful are not correct. Participants’ contributions: • Share templates, tools and prototypes for strategies • Come up with a unified tagline for sustainable and healthy food systems. It is difficult to align people behind a system, rather than an output • Increase marketing budgets for SMEs to provide healthy, sustainable foods to consumers • Continue to develop measurement and evidence • Build tools for consumer behaviour change • Work with governments to get the policy right • Carry out more R&D on health, healthy foods and BC, to move sustainable food systems up governments’ priorities list236238239240241243244245246248249250Agriculture and land use strategies drive the promotion of agro-biodiversity and stimulate local food production, in a way that provides sustainable livelihoods and healthy diets for all. We need “game changing action” to implement a global movement for more biodiverse crops from production to consumption. Agrobiodiversity could be a game changer to scale up nature-positive production and support people with healthy, nutritious food. Recommendations: • The consumer needs better information, e.g. through labels which provide information about the environmental impact of food (water footprint, carbon footprint, biodiversity food print). Consumer demand is an important driver for change. The group discussed who provides information to consumers and agreed science should help improve consumer information. • Producers need to learn about “forgotten” seeds. Farmers need access to more trainings, better seeds (e.g. through seedbanks, seed quality, seed systems), and improved crop storage. Family farmers and small-holders need support in: farmer organization, improved market access and links with retailers; access to digital tools; access to higher education levels; capacities in processing and packaging to reduce post-harvest losses. Their ability to speak at policy level should be strengthened. Farmers also need support to do more with less (sustainable intensification). Policies need to address challenges associated with water usage in agriculture. • Science: Knowledge and information is key, for producers and consumers, hence science has a critical role. More research on agrobiodiversity is required, together with better cooperation between science and multi-stakeholder innovation. Sound monitoring is needed to make actions successful, to trace crops from gene banks back to the ground, and to monitor diversity from production to consumption. Science needs to be transformed into applications, linked to farmers, e.g. : living labs, connecting researchers with various stakeholders (consumer organizations, farmer organizations, etc.), to co-create solutions and encourage local innovation. • Policy: Subsidies need to be repurposed to support smallholders and family farmers in a transformation towards more (agro)biodiversity, and to increase the use of underutilized crops. Agrobiodiversity is being integrated in the post 2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (ref: SDG 2.5 and Aichi target 13). • Private sector: Resilient landscape approaches need to be strengthened, including with cooperation of private sector, e.g. by supporting the production of more biodiverse crops. Business models that benefit agro-biodiversity are needed. Example: Costa Rica’s Sustainable Gastronomy initiative, which is a huge opportunity for the tourism sector. There is space to test and pilot new innovations through collaborative business models. Key overarching topics for the Food System Summit: • Better connections between science, policies and innovation • Strengthening connections between farmers, consumers and all stakeholders to co-create solutions • Bringing together different policy areas (climate change. Biodiversity, desertification). The agricultural sector could be at the center of this convergence through the food systems lens. • Access to finance • Knowledge sharing (esp. with farmers) • How to structure the economic system into a more circular and less extractive system, and the need to shift incentives. • The linkages between culture, tourism and biodiversity236238239240241242243244245246249250Consumers worldwide have shifted to more conscious and sustainable consumption patterns, within planetary boundaries, in line with nutritional recommendations.  Recommended Actions: • The continuation and spread of Food Loss and Waste (FLW) consumer campaigns in different countries, drawing on expertise such as the World Resource Institute’s and examples in countries (UK & South Africa) where there are great success stories. A key component of this success also involves dialogues like these. • Actions taken up by national leadership – these will have the greatest impact on consumer diet shifts, e.g. China’s recent carbon neutral pledge, which will need to consider healthier consumption alongside environmental strategies. • Redesigning inclusive solutions that change diets, beyond awareness building campaigns. Consumers don’t change the way they eat because a panel of experts say so. Food is feeling, culture and emotion. In the next three years we need to look past ideology, reconcile definitions and design inclusive solutions. • The group saw an opportunity in the fact that social movements are “trending”. Despite the effortless look and feel of citizens taking the streets, there is a lot of work and effort that goes into these, and we can potentially use this as a way to make change. Requires a closer look at highlighting the nexus of climate, food and people. Controversies and Divergences: • Debate on animal products in diets. We need a shared understanding around what a planetary bounded healthy diet is, and how we can achieve it with the minimal level of global trade offs. • Need to move beyond dialogues and ensure there is concrete action. We can make small steps in the right direction and hold each other accountable. Measuring success: • Using standard templates for reporting and measuring success, such as in the case of FLW. Countries can measure baseline numbers around FLW and compare afterwards. • For carbon pledges, there needs to be similar research, monitoring and evaluation to ensure that progress is taking place, using scientific methods. The key will be to look beyond national figures and dive deeper into the socio-economic, local and regional nuances that collectively make a systemic shift. This could also entail national food policies, that transcend an agricultural ministry, but involve budget and strategy across ministries. • Ensuring an inclusive process for the redesign of the food system. This is happening now, with the Summit process underway, and the dialogues as a piece of that. However, for true success, we need to make sure new and diverse actors are participating, specifically from civil society and those who are struggling from the compounded challenge of a health pandemic, economic crisis and food insecurity. This includes SMEs, local retailers, and restaurants, as well as manufacturers. • Financial and behavioural nudges are important. Like all actions they must be applied differently in different contexts. The food environment is critical to people making the right demands. Participants’ contributions: • Advance the work of collective action groups that include retailers, manufacturers, and CEOs, and create standard messaging. • Enhance and spread the word on science-based game changers. Support research that will build the evidence around consumer influence in shifting food systems. • Continue to work with countries on ways to implement FLW Campaigns in a tailored, fit for purpose, approach. • Tackle reforms around agricultural subsidies that negatively impact consumers on nutrition.236238239240241242243244248249250251Policies, actions, and investments in sustainable food systems are informed by science that promotes a systems approach, appreciates impacts beyond individual sectors, and builds on traditional knowledge – The group identified 3 areas requiring attention: 1. The science / policy interface: • Focus on ensuring science is usable in policy making. • Address gaps in existing regulations and the lack of scientists involved in policy making • Bring scientists from different fields together for coherent policies. More generalists are needed to bridge sectors. • Science should find adequate processes to address trade-offs and facilitate dialogue between different sectors. • Inclusivity: Key actors are often missing in discussions (e.g. technical hurdles excluding people). Science on the ground provides the opportunity to connect with stakeholders. • Addressing asymmetries to ensure everybody has a voice in policy processes. 2. Issues around data: • Data availability: find efficient and inclusive ways to gather missing data (e.g data gap on “traditional markets” in the global south). • Equity issues: we need to think about who is generating data, who holds it and who can access it (i.e paywalls). Revise who is heard when collecting data and addressing existing power relations. • Platforms to make alternative knowledge / lived experiences visible need to be created • Make lived experiences and traditional knowledge count as valid knowledge in science. • A platform should be created for different kinds of knowledge to come together and find a common ground. 3. Research and dissemination of knowledge: • Think about different ways to do science, e.g. with new tools and ways of sharing knowledge. • Overcome the established notion of who is relevant in science, whom do we listen to, and bring in more young people and underrepresented voices. • Access to knowledge should be democratized. • Ask the question of relevance when doing research: whom are we working with, whom is it relevant for? • Dealing with the difficulties of this era of disinformation: focus not only on people who “believe in science” but bring everybody in. • Use interdisciplinary approaches to embrace the complexity of food systems and interrelated issues. • Multidisciplinary/ transboundary research: need for a better toolbox for communication when engaging with diverse actors. • Optimizing at local level: find innovation that is suitable for local contexts. • Improve the contextualization of scientific findings. • Communication work is needed, especially showcasing local knowledge • Dissemination of results and funding: when asking for funding for research, communication and outreach after the study should be an integral part of the project. • Finding ways to break lock-ins: for example, we can put our existing narratives aside and find new narratives that are co-created in a dialogue. The group recommended the following for using science in the Food Systems Summit Dialogues: • Bring in new science and ways of knowing, not only already established knowledge. • Bring new people and underrepresented voices from the science community into the Food Systems Summit Dialogues (e.g young people, indigenous peoples, farmers) • Connect data from different disciplines and sectors and make it available to foster dialogue among sectors • Value different kinds of data and host “wisdom exchanges” to democratize knowledge production. • Enable the art form of translating science and data into policy. What are new systems approaches and platforms that we can use to do this?236238239240241242243244246247248249251Innovative governance and incentives at all levels foster cross-sectoral collaboration across policy areas (e.g. biodiversity, climate change, health, trade, etc.). The group identified the following action areas as priorities to foster cross-sectoral collaboration: • Working on sustainable school meals: Every child goes to school in most of the world – school meals can be linked to smallholders, culture, organic agriculture, healthy environment. At the UNFSS, this can break silos. It is also politically easy because you can address all the SDGs through school meals. They can create links from local to national scales. Who to involve? Governments, farmers, food suppliers, procurers, etc. National and local levels should work together. What’s the push to make this on a large scale? It’s a triple win: through school meals you can achieve healthy food, healthy people, and healthy environment while addressing social aspects (small-holders livelihoods). It also helps build the resilience of cities and regions. What stopped people to date and what can help? Sometimes the procurement legislation is not supportive, or farmers are in remote areas, are not well connected or are difficult to reach; it is also about political decision making, and the fact that this is not seen as a low hanging fruit. • Set up food or value chain roundtables/councils where several parts of the food chain are represented and learn to know each other: Value chain roundtables have existed in Canada for almost 2 decades and proved very useful to respond to the COVID-19 food system crisis. These existing systems allowed a rapid response. Councils look at key value chains, and how we integrate the perspectives of actors to build resilience and plan for the long term. • Combining innovation with classical approaches: We can use the many innovations in the corporate sector, technology, and social organization and make sure they are coherent with the UNFSS objectives. Yet, more classical approaches such as social protection programmes for example have been gaining success in the past months because they target and help to the most fragile people. Also, value chain actors have to sit together to solve these issues. • Having a coherent food policy and national round tables that connect and inclusive value chains discussions. • Setting up departmental agencies to allow cross-sectoral collaboration: example of Canada. • Programmes that address the triple burden of malnutrition (overnutrition, undernutrition and micronutrient deficiencies). • Foster open innovation: facilitate sharing information which then allows innovation to come from broader set of actors, and support collaboration. • Multi-sectoral food policies: food policies need to link agriculture, health, trade and environment across multiple parts of government. This is not easy and requires hard work and a matrix approach in organization. • Country-appropriate approaches: the Goal for the summit is that countries explore all and actually set up these approaches as appropriate to their country. • “Embracing opposites” in how we work across silos The group determined that an indicator of success in fostering cross-sectoral collaboration will be the permanency and institutionalization of these processes. It proposed as a target that through the UNFSS, X number of countries should learn about these value chains roundtables and food policies.236238239240241243245246248249250Responsible investments in sustainable and equitable food systems by financial institutions and private investors is the norm Recommended priority actions: • Use tool and instruments to measure externalities (positive and negative). • Better align private and public investments and look at linkages with social issues; tap into the potential of different types of economies and paradigms (e.g. circular economy.) • Facilitate local access of smaller amounts of capital. • Support entrepreneurs, as change-makers, which can be considered “agro-preneurs”. • Create joint actions between public and private sectors; identify the lock-ins and break them. • Adopt a systems approach. A cross-sectoral and cross-ministerial approach, at donor level, including issues on poverty, smallholder, livelihoods and climate change, would be a win-win. • Look at long-term benefits - “longer-term patient capital”. For example, investments in building evidence which will bring multiple benefits. • Look at smaller investments and longer-term impacts. These may need different Key Performance Indicators and other enabling conditions. • Have better knowledge of enabling conditions, including the political dimension. • On nutrition, there is a need for guidance to create enabling conditions and capture best practices. “How to build more trust amongst stakeholders”? • “Trickle down dialogues:” get this conversation beyond global/national levels to engage local changemakers. Measuring success: • Through SDG indicators. Refine them and include investment-related components. • If we are observing investments in transition (e.g. shifts from conventional to organic). A collective transition would indicate a systemic transformation. • There are already matrixes (e.g. the SDGs and other agreements), especially for investments purposes. However, some countries might not report on them. • Enabling conditions need to be better understood, and related matrices should be developed, e.g. to understand that investment-related outcomes take time. Divergence and contention: • Which investments and perverse subsidies should be discontinued? Let’s get rid of the damaging ones in the next three years. Ex: Deforestation, subsidies, waters, soils, fertilisers, desertification, etc. • Regarding trade-offs, there should be a process for just transition, to not leave farmers behind without any livelihoods. Investors/donors should invest in those schemes. • Investments that hazard basic rights should not happen. Major challenges include: • Conflicting policies. Subsidies and investments might not reach the final-level target, such as farmers. • The challenge of highly industrial food systems: diversification vs. mono-culture, for which the related value chains are highly efficient. • Data and matrixes. Sustainability should be included in data, and it should be easily accessible. Otherwise, we can be trapped into selecting only tempting data. • More sustainable consumption. Ex: Digital technology to inform producers and consumers. Opportunities directly related to the Food Systems Summit (FSS): • The findings from the FSS should be embedded in the goals of the major funding entities, with the support of countries. • Allocation of funding (development and domestic funding) should be more directed to work on data. • Leveraging platforms such as the “Food Policy Platform for Change” focused on agro-ecology. • One participant raised the idea of bringing food in the Global Commons Alliance (e.g. “Global Food Common”)236238239240241243244245246249250Governments at all levels make maximum use of their leverage power to bring about sustainable food systems transformation through procurement. Issues, opportunities and action: 1. Procurement for school meals impacts on sustainable production & consumption, diets and children’s health. Why is it not happening? 2. One third of food procured goes to waste. Economic and environmental rationale for saving on food loss and waste (FLW). 3. Public procurement can send strong market signals and raise the whole market baseline towards healthier, more sustainable food and reduced FLW. 4. Incentivize growers towards more healthy foods. They won’t make the switch themselves as they lack resources. It is a long-term & high effort engagement. 5. The bottom-up approach with sub-national entities has grown (e.g. ICLEI) and can contribute to Nationally Determined Contributions. The stronger the local efforts, the more likely national governments will follow with strong commitment. 6. Procurement of eco-labelled products by government agencies can support a market for them. Increased resource efficiency will ensure that sustainably produced products are not more expensive. 7. Definitions of sustainable public procurement vary and can include health, waste, environment, human rights.  Create good procurement guidelines and improve technical competence in procurement teams.  Procurement managers need to be trained and incentivized to procure food sustainably/locally, and factor that in next to cost minimization. 8. Coherent policy, guiding structure and capacity building. 9. Just transitioning: subnational governments can revitalize rural economies by investing in local employment and creating agricultural jobs through local public procurement policies. Potential divergence: • Complexity of trade-offs: what is most important? Biodiversity, food security, healthy nutrition, forest protection or climate? Work across sectors, identify sweet-spots. • Lock-ins & vested interests: Vested interested may not want to let go of the (unsustainable) status quo. Ensure that clear win-wins are used straight away, e.g. ensure procurement of locally grown school meals which support local economies –demonstrates the possibilities at local, municipal, sub-government levels. • Current polices may incentivise deforestation. Certain products that e.g. drive deforestation, GHG emissions could be banned. Measuring success: - Assessing the policy itself, a key driver for the shift from a cost-based to a sustainability-focused approach with new KPIs. - A compelling economic case for sustainable procurement, which can be built (and monitored) through: • internalizing external costs • measurable food waste reduction • assessing proxies for success • creation of a level playing field • jobs creation and savings • sustainability issue as a national security issue • food safety as a public health issue • measure of dietary quality and its impact on public health (also economic) Contributions participants can make: - Double down on leadership and use multi-stakeholder process to tackle the balance between economic development and preserving nature. - Restate their commitment on FLW, look at other levers, collaborate with unexpected partners. - Build on eco-label and resource efficiency. - Demonstrate that different sectors and levels of government can collaborate and procure sustainable food. - Continue promoting sustainable healthy diets to prevent the burden of malnutrition and work towards a healthy planet.236238239240241242243244246249250Interlinkages and trade-offs between policy areas (e.g. agriculture, environment, health, nutrition, etc.) are actively managed through holistic and coherent food systems policies that catalyze joint action Priority actions: • Break silos between different institutions, administrations and stakeholders. First step: involve in the conversation those stakeholders that have been left aside. • The UN through the FSS could provide guidelines and incentives to reorganize their administration so that transformation and policy coherence are achievable. • A systemic approach requires radical changes within institutions and people’s mindsets. Research must build on available information that can inform and transform policy and develop methods and expertise to support institutional change. Research must provide a frame for the change. • We have evidence on what to do to make food production sustainable, e.g. agroecology. We need to use the evidence to implement necessary actions through holistic approaches. All stakeholders need to invest. • Closing gaps between producers and consumers means knowledge and information democratization to facilitate informed decision-making. Who must take the lead? A disruptive answer was new institutions co-created by existing institutions that are flexible and prospective enough to deal with today’s and future challenges, learning from the past. Areas of divergence: 1) Inclusiveness: • One participant mentioned some NGOs civil society feel relegated and concerned about private sector involvement in the FSS process. How can inclusiveness be promoted, so that the interest of the people is properly represented, not only the private sector? • Good mix between science and policy would benefit inclusiveness. Silos are not only between governments and departments, but also between stakeholders. 2) Role of trade and markets • We need to localize food systems and deal with inequity, allowing people to produce what they need and not depend on cheaper food produced overseas. Shipping food is one of the problems in the food system. Global and local food systems are needed to feed the world. Policy makers should remove these blockages. • Trade-off between consumers' access (price) and producers' income (price). Measuring success: • Set milestones for monitoring the transformation. The SDGs are a good frame to do it, but need to be contextualized at national and subnational scales. There are different trade-offs at different levels. • Promote a systemic and holistic approach across scales. • Challenges lie in collecting, analysing and accessing data for these indicators, to inform decision-making in different contexts and scales. • In the short term, monitor policy shifts in countries to learn from them and act accordingly. • Look at the different interlinkages, associated trade-offs and synergies. We need in country level actions and try to break those silos. Participants’ contributions: • Help people, cities, regions and countries build up policy with systemic approach. • Global research alliance for nutrition and Hopkins University are working to get information at subnational level on SDG indicators, to support local decision-making. • The Millennium institute is working with UNDP to develop locally adapted models to see how SDG targets can be met based on local conditions. • The Instituto Tecnológico de Costa Rica contributes with research and awareness raising of future professionals, and extension and discussion fora, for example in the Food Loss and Waste Initiative in Latin America.237238239240241243244245246249250There we difficult trade-offs: 1) The place of animal source foods in diets. Some highlighted how debates about meat eating becomes a “turf war” in food system conversations. One group recommended to focus on how these systems should be improved. Another highlighted the need to have a shared understanding of what a planetary-bounded healthy diet is and how we can achieve it with minimal levels of global trade-offs. 2) The question of which investments and “perverse” subsidies should be discontinued. Some participants were in favour of getting rid of those that cause damage – e.g. by leading to deforestation, waters, soils, fertilisers, desertification, etc. Some participants suggested that certain products that drive deforestation and Greenhouse gas emissions, for example, could be banned. But there are trade-offs, e.g. potential loss of employment in certain sectors and economic losses. 3) The tension between the efficiency of highly industrial food systems focused on a limited set of value chains (e.g. monoculture) vs. the multiple benefits (health, environmental…) of diversification. 4) Conflicting policies, and the fact that subsidies and investments might not reach the final-level target, such as farmers. 5) The trade-offs in terms of what is most important: Biodiversity, forests and climate, or food security, or healthy nutrition? Participants highlighted the need to work across sectors and identify “sweet-spots”. 6) The controversies in the role of trade and markets, including: the trade-offs between consumers’ access (buying price) and producers’ income (selling price); competition of cheap imports with local production vs. the need to ensure an efficient distribution of food; etc. 7) The tensions between local and global levels, with some feeling the current system blocks local action and calling for decision-making to move from the global to the local level. No clear solutions for addressing these challenges were identified but there was consensus on the fact that controversies and “elephants in the room” must be surfaced if we want to really tackle these issues. Participants agreed that Dialogues and the Food Systems Summit provide a good opportunity to do so.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/1st-Global-FSSD-Report_final.pdfhttps://www.oneplanetnetwork.org/sustainable-food-system

2021-01-29 20:11:04204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/1717/203

1076146

Yes

2342382392402412422442452472511. ENSURE ACCESS TO SAFE AND NUTRITIOUS FOOD FOR ALL • Addressing food loss and waste in supply chains, food security, and greenhouse gas emissions. Multi-stakeholder research and development. Leveraging technology to coordinate food distribution. • Innovating to advance the SDGs. 2. SHIFT TO SUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION PATTERNS • Transforming diets to address pressing issues of malnutrition and obesity, while also reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Public policies to promote healthier foods. Access to affordable, nutritious food. Market incentives for farmers to advance sustainable agriculture. • Engaging 10 million young people in science-based social movements to catalyze climate action in food systems. 3. BOOST NATURE-POSITIVE PRODUCTION • Addressing the adverse impacts of agricultural production on critical ecosystems including tropical forests, peatlands, savannas, and grasslands. • Empowering 200 million farmers through the development of markets and implementing climate-smart agricultural practices to support resilience and profitability. • Unlocking USD 320 billion per year from both public and private finance to create business opportunities for sustainable finance. 4. ADVANCE EQUITABLE LIVELIHOODS • Closing the gender gap in agriculture and food systems that make it difficult for women to have access to resources and opportunities, including capital, technology, and land tenure. 5. BUILD RESILIENCE TO VULNERABILITIES • Empowering 200 million farmers through the development of markets and implementation of climate-smart practices for resilience and profitability.235238239240241242244245246247251CONCLUSION: Connections, Actions, and Explore Connections: Establish relationships between a variety of stakeholders including scientists, researchers, and economists together with farmers, civil society, government agencies, businesses, educators, and political and social thought leaders. Each of these groups has a vital role to play in transforming food systems, as well as evaluating trade-offs and measuring results. Actions: To achieve success, stakeholders will need to collaborate to align public policies, subsidies, and financial investments that incentivize businesses and farmers to 1. Eliminate food loss and waste in the supply chain. 2. Conserve natural ecosystems. 3. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 4. Support healthy and sustainable climate-friendly diets. 5. Ensure that high nutrient foods are accessible and affordable to underserved communities. 6. Ensure equitable livelihoods for farmers, including smallholder farmers, women, youth, and underserved groups. 7. Provide equal access to capital, technology, and land tenure to smallholder farmers, women, and underserved groups. 8. Strengthen capacity to provide actionable and real-time information and advisory services to farmers. 9. Scale innovative solutions. To advance progress in achieving the SDGs, stakeholders will need to measure, evaluate, and report the data and evidence that is required to iteratively improve food systems. This will include ongoing assessments to balance food security, public health, the environment and climate change, farmer livelihoods, and the needs of women, youth, and underserved groups. Explore: Further explore food systems by drawing on data and evidence to guide: 1. Public policy—including subsidies, taxing, and food labeling—with regard to food security, public health, climate change and the environment, farmer livelihoods, and the needs of women, youth, and underserved groups. 2. Businesses, including financial investments, research and development, and innovation. 3. Research, education, and civil society to advance the SDGs.2362381. ENSURE ACCESS TO SAFE AND NUTRITIOUS FOOD FOR ALL Outcome: Food loss and waste reduced by 50% in supply chains, thereby improving food security and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Actions: Improve soil management and crop protection. Educate consumers about waste. Who: Farmers, businesses, researchers. Assess: Multi-stakeholder research. Challenge: Redistributing surplus food. Outcome: Food and agricultural systems are transformed to provide game-changing end to end solutions to advance the SDGs. Actions: Benefit farmers. Local solutions. Who: Farmers, scientists, businesses. Assess: Cross sectoral research. Challenge: Regional variations.2362392442462492502512. SHIFT TO SUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION PATTERNS Outcome: Diets are transformed to address malnutrition and obesity, while reducing greenhouse gases. Actions: Policies and partnerships to help consumers choose healthier foods (labeling, taxation, advertising). Improve access to affordable, nutritional food. Market incentives for farmers. Who: PPPs. Assess: Trade-offs between farmer incomes, nutrient quality, food prices, and sustainability. Challenge: Shaping demand for healthier consumption. Outcome: 10 million young people are engaged in science-based social movements to catalyze climate action in food systems. Actions: Engage youth climate action leaders to incorporate food security, health, access, and systems innovation. Who: Cross-sectoral: private, public, science, education. Assess: Balance health and environmental science. Challenge: Promote longer term thinking.2362402442452462493. BOOST NATURE-POSITIVE PRODUCTION Outcome: Agricultural production does not adversely impact ecosystems including tropical forests, peatlands, savannas, and grasslands. Actions: Transform food systems to address climate and biodiversity crises. Conservation measures including pollinators and nutrient management. Incentivize farmers. Who: Businesses, government agencies, and schools. Assess: Data and evidence, evaluating trade-offs. Challenge: Scaling solutions. Outcome: USD 320 billion annually from public and private finance is unlocked to create business opportunities for sustainable finance. Actions: Align current spending, including by OECD countries (presently $530 billion annually in farm subsidies), with incentives to advance the SDGs. Who: Government, businesses. Assess: Measure success by SDGs. Challenge: Pricing carbon.2362412452492514. ADVANCE EQUITABLE LIVELIHOODS Outcome: Gender gap in agriculture and food systems is closed; women have equal access to resources and opportunities. Actions: Provide women and people of color with equal access to capital, technology, and land tenure. Align policies with the needs of smallholder farmers, solutions to climate change, and entrepreneurial opportunities. Who: Government, businesses. Measure: Access to resources. Challenges: Historic inequalities.2362422442472515. BUILD RESILIENCE TO VULNERABILITIES Outcome: 200 million farmers are empowered through the development of markets and implementation of climate-smart practices for resilience and profitability. Actions: Assist smallholder farmers—provide access to technology and seeds to improve productivity and diversify income streams. Address gender gap. Who: Farmers, government, businesses. Assess: Measure greenhouse gas emissions and diversity of farmers’ revenues. Challenge: De-risking farmer livelihoods.237238239240241242244245246247248249250251Strengths and vulnerabilities within food systems: Concerns were raised that in the process of adapting food systems to mitigate the effects of climate change and ecological degradation, the following three urgent matters must be addressed: Livelihoods of smallholder farmers and how they will be affected by changes in food systems. Women having access to resources, including capital, technology, and land tenure. Food security, including underserved communities having access to affordable and nutritious food. Areas that need further exploration: Given the extent of transformation that will be required to adapt food systems to address climate change and ecology, as well as food security and public health, participants focused on The urgency of data and evidence to evaluate trade-offs, and make adjustments in an iterative and timely manner. Practices that are needed for food system sustainability: Participants expressed the importance of involving a variety of stakeholders in the process of developing innovative solutions to transform to end to end food systems. They emphasized the importance of collecting data and evidence about trade-offs and what works, leveraging technology for sharing real-time information, and being inclusive. Stakeholders whose interests should be prioritized: There was a great deal of concern about: Prioritizing farmers, including small holder farmers and including women. Participants see farmers as valuable resources with regard to their experience and expertise. In fact, participants recommended that farmer-to-farmer networks be strengthened and empowered, and provided with technology that will enable them to share information in real time. Including youth. Success in transforming to sustainable food systems will require the engagement of young people. Participants urged that education be oriented to young people in addition to on-site problem solving to advance sustainable agriculture. Including women. Participants emphasized that women—including women of color—must have equal access to vital resources including financial capital, technology, and land tenure. That women need educational opportunities. That women must have a voice in decision-making. Prioritizing capacity building. Participants stressed the importance of capacity building to enable small holder farmers, women, youth, and people of color. This includes access to technology, financial capital, and land tenure, as well as information-sharing, networks among farmers, training and education.

2021-02-03 17:09:52204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/1334/135

490112810002722103241511022116132171449

Stakeholders across various sectors were invited to participate in the dialogue, to capture diverse perspectives and dimensions. Participants were also informed of the importance of the dialogue and the need for their engagement. The dialogue topics were developed recognizing the urgency of transforming food systems, and the complexity and interconnectedness of food systems. The dialogue topics cut across multiple areas including the accessibility and affordability of nutrition, the need for technology and data in agriculture, infrastructure to support food production, inclusion of vulnerable groups, access to finance for food producers and the need for climate smart agriculture. Seasoned facilitators were also available to help facilitate the discussion topics to ensure that participants focused on future actions and that discussions were inclusive of divergent ideas.The dialogue included a presentation before the discussions, introducing participants to the purpose and objectives of the UN Food Systems Summit and the Summit Dialogues. Participants were encouraged to share views from their work, highlighting how they could be applied to the country context and engaged with one another to discuss pathways to ensure that Nigeria can attain sustainable food systems in the next decade. The dialogue encouraged participants to look beyond the challenges in the sector and suggest innovative approaches to ensure the attainment of the discussion topics. The dialogue also reinforced the need for engagement of participants in the dialogue processes across the country, to further contribute to the outcomes of the Food Systems Summit.

Yes

234238239241242243244245248249251The dialogue sought to reinforce the need for stronger, inclusive, and equitable food systems in Nigeria that can withstand shocks and disruptions, are inclusive of the population, and are equitable for all. Resilient food systems in Nigeria are critical to ensure the continual production and supply of safe, accessible, and affordable food for its population. The dialogue was centered on the following crucial areas: 1) The need for accessible and affordable nutritious food to support the overall reduction of malnutrition and hidden hunger in households. 2) The importance of appropriate technology and credible data in data-driven policymaking. 3) The role of infrastructural facilities in reducing food loss and wastage. 4) The impact of funding facilities in agriculture on overall food production. 5) The importance of minority groups in creating more inclusive sustainable food systems. 6) The impact of emerging technologies on food production235238239241242243244245248249251A. Reduction in malnutrition and hidden hunger can be achieved through appropriate nutrition education; mandatory positioning of nutritionists or nutrition practitioners in the primary healthcare systems and other levels of health institutions; improved agricultural extension services; and the intentional re-orientation on socio-cultural issues toward the consumption of rich diversified diets. B. To facilitate data-driven policymaking for the food and agriculture sector, the design, and implementation of a harmonized and inter-connected central data gathering, storage, and sharing platform in the agricultural sector at a national and/or sub-national level is extremely crucial. C. To address infrastructural deficits in the food and agriculture sector, priorities must include increased investment in alternative sources of power, construction of rural roads, the development of more resilient seed varieties, and the regulation of the standard of agricultural machinery imported into the country, amongst others. D. Increasing the funding facilities available to smallholder farmers will require amongst other things, the commercial aggregation of farmers, access to a well-structured data management system, the development of farmer-centric insurance products to hedge risks, the deployment of both traditional and innovative sources of finance and incentivizing financial institutions to fund the sector. E. Enhancing data collection tools to capture the data of vulnerable groups, the inclusion of these vulnerable groups in policy planning and implementation processes, incentivizing groups by providing tailored education and support for them, are some of the strategies to build a more inclusive food system in the country. F. The implementation of mitigative measures to reduce the adverse effects of climate change on agricultural and food production is critical236238241248249Outcome: Households in rural communities and urban areas have access to affordable nutritious food and have received appropriate nutrition education and make wise food choices, thereby contributing to an overall reduction in malnutrition and hidden hunger. Actions to be taken: a) The improvement of agricultural extension services in the country to promote the implementation of best agricultural practices in rural agrarian communities. b) The introduction of family life extension programs into the agricultural extension scheme to address socio-cultural issues, particularly, the wrong bias towards consumption of diversified diets rich in protein, fruits and, vegetables. c) The promotion of healthier eating patterns by expanding the blueprint of nutrition education, literacy and, care by the mandatory positioning of nutritionists or nutrition practitioners in the primary healthcare systems and other levels of health institutions. d) The optimization of overall nutrition in the country by strengthening programs (both existing or otherwise) that sensitize rural farming households on how to utilize available crops and foods. e) Training of families in the rural areas to sustain their supply and access to protein-rich foods by breeding captured bush meat or wild games. f) Enhancement of farmer productivity through investment in mechanization and agricultural technology which will positively impact their income and purchasing power g) Ensure that domestic food production addresses the availability and quality of foods, and the socio-economic challenges.236238243249Outcome: Affordable and appropriate technology and credible data are readily accessible for key stakeholders and players across the priority value chains in Nigeria to facilitate data-driven policymaking, sustainable food production, traceability, and distribution. Actions to be taken: a) The design of a comprehensive central data collection and sharing platform/database for the agricultural sector that multiple parties can benefit from is crucial. There must be harmonized and inter-connected central data gathering, storage, and sharing platform in the agricultural sector at a national and/or sub-national level. b) Public-Private Partnerships between industry and value chain actors is essential to ensure that technology is embedded in interventions. c) Government at all levels must ensure an enabling environment (characterized by right incentives, tax breaks, less regulatory controls on digital services, reduced red tape) for emerging technologies to thrive. d) Mass technological education for stakeholders (farmers, processors, etc.) on relevant applicable technologies is vital236239248249Outcome: The existence of good road linkages, storage, and processing facilities support sustainable food distribution networks and agro-processing, ensuring a reduction in food loss and waste. Actions to be taken: a) The need for increased investment in the construction of rural roads to facilitate easy access to farming communities and enable shorter turnaround times for off-taking activities b) Diversification of electricity sources to alternative sources such as solar energy. c) Renewed focus on value addition by Nigerian farmers to encourage increased infrastructural investment in the sector. d) Increased extension services by research institutions, government agencies, and private sector companies to educate farmers on new and improved farming practices. e) Collaboration by the public and private sector to establish grazing reserves for pastoralists, with access to potable water, cold chain storage and, lodging facilities. f) Development of new seed varieties that guarantee longer shelf-life and the ability to withstand the rigors of harvesting, transportation, and storage. g) Development of standards by regulatory authorities for agricultural machinery to prevent the proliferation of inefficient machinery in the country. h) Establishment of a multi-stakeholder partnership forum to tackle insecurity, engage communities and, provide support to security agents to deliver adequate security to farming communities.236241245248249Outcome: At least 70% of smallholder farmers in Nigeria have access to and can benefit from funding facilities to ensure the use of improved inputs and mechanization, ultimately increasing their yields and overall food production. Actions to be taken: a) Commercial aggregation of smallholder farmers in groups across multiple value chains to ensure greater access to market, funding, and reach. Other benefits of the farmer groups include capacity building initiatives and technology. b) Implementation of a robust well-structured data management system. c) Development of traditional and innovative sources of finance, (such as, crowdfunding, diaspora investment, franchising, fintech, etc) and tailored risk-management products such as farmer-centric insurance products for each value chain d) Creation of an index of financial institutions that contribute to funding for smallholder farmers to stimulate healthy competition amongst financial institutions and impact investors. e) Assessment of lessons learned from the Fund for Agricultural Finance in Nigeria (FAFIN) project to enable scaling. f) Expansion of the capacity of aggregators to increase their outgrowers and ingrowers clusters. g) Expansion of activities undertaken by donor agencies from just capacity building to supporting advocacy and education for adoption of improved seed varieties for key food crops like rice, corn, cocoa, sorghum, beans, yams and, fruit trees, amongst others.236241243249251Outcome: Ensuring representation for the most vulnerable groups (e.g., women and youth) in society in the food systems through equitable access to resources (land, agricultural inputs, social nets, business development, etc.) has helped in creating more inclusive sustainable food systems in Nigeria. Actions to be taken: a) Enhance data collection tools to ensure a more inclusive food system. b) Administration of the agricultural sector should be more state-led. The Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development needs to be slimmer at the top and more resources funneled to the state and local government level. c) Inclusion of grassroots communities, women, and youth groups in policy planning and compilation of national data in strategic planning and implementation processes. d) Holistically identify critical areas of development and missed opportunities within the agricultural sector. This will justify an increase in budget allocation to the agriculture sector or departments within. e) Education of the general populace on the importance of the agricultural sector.236242244248Outcome: Knowledge exchange on climate-smart agriculture, climate change adaptation, water management, and the promotion of micro-irrigation ensures investments in sustainable land use and reinforcement of resilient livelihoods of smallholder farmers. Actions to be taken: a) Build and maintain healthy soils on which crops are cultivated to enhance food security. b) Effectively manage water utilization to ensure environmental sustainability. c) Implement mitigative measures to combat and reduce climate pollutions (air and water).237238241248Vulnerabilities within Food Systems in Nigeria: a) The persistence of inefficient traditional farming methodologies due to the unwillingness of rural farming households to adopt modern farming technologies. b) Determination of market prices by middlemen or aggregators and not farmers. c) Cultural practices in farming communities that inhibit progress like prohibiting women from engaging in profitable agri-businesses. d) Farmers’ preference for selling off raw farm produce after harvest rather than engaging in value-addition. Practices Needed for food system sustainability: a) Rolling out a nation-wide scheme on improving protein intake in Nigeria by exploiting innovative mechanisms such as developing both animal and plant protein through partnerships with the private sector, to tackle protein deficiency. b) Aggregate and connect farmers to ameliorate some of the challenges faced such as inadequate storage facilities. c) Collaboration between UN agencies, MDAs, the private sector and other stakeholders to drive improved nutrition and consumption of nutritious foods across Nigeria’s food systems. d) Integration of nutrition and healthy diets components in the Country Nutrition Programming framework. e) Maximization of social impact by encouraging stakeholders in partnerships and collaborations to transform the food systems. f) Maximization of mobile technology to deliver agro-services to farmers in remote locations. g) Acceptance and adoption of genetically modified varieties by rural farming households.

2021-02-10 11:56:04204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/4517/194

1072037302010610610151510123114

We used the principles available online here as guiding principles in the design of this event: https://summitdialogues.org/overview/un-food-systems-summit-principles-for-engagement/The event featured speakers and stakeholders from diverse backgrounds, perspectives, and sectors. We included a range of speakers to demonstrate the importance of inclusivity in building food system partnerships. We also highlighted trust as a key element of effective multi-stakeholder partnerships.Not at this time.

Yes

234240241242243244245247248To achieve innovative solutions for sustainable food systems that are scalable, we need to bring together the best minds from across sectors. Partnerships are essential for developing creative solutions and moving promising ideas into broader action. This session features ongoing regional partnerships among researchers, farmers, private sector decision makers, and other key stakeholders that reimagine externalities in food systems and work with agricultural innovators to produce real social, environmental, and economic benefits. Participants in this session learned about “payment for ecosystem services” programs that incentivize farmers to produce valuable ecosystem services as well as food and livelihoods from working landscapes; bold actions for equity in food systems through Milk with Dignity, the only worker driven labor standards program in the US; and research on the social dimensions of food systems that explores how and why farmers adapt to environmental change. Session Goals: • Identify innovative food system solutions that can be replicated and scaled • Explore how collaboration among key academic, private sector, and policy partners can advance solutions and move sustainable food system ideas into broader action • Contribute to inputs for the UN Foods Systems Summit 2021, especially ideas for a shared research-to-practice agenda that supports the goals of the Summit Key Questions: • What are challenges to developing cross-sector partnerships in sustainable food systems, and ways to overcome them? • Are there generalizable lessons from the examples of partnerships in this session that can be applied to cases in other regions? • How are farmers engaged in coproducing solutions? • What key opportunities, outcomes, or dilemmas could be expected when scaling up these solutions? • How can we measure or track the social, environmental, and economic benefits that result from these partnerships? Speakers include: • Moderator: Cheryl Pinto, Global Values Led Sourcing Manager, Ben & Jerry's • Taylor Ricketts, Gund Professor and Director, Gund Institute for Environment, University of Vermont • Dave Rappaport, Global Social Mission Officer, Ben & Jerry’s • Meredith Niles, Gund Fellow and Assistant Professor, Department of Nutrition and Food Sciences, University of Vermont • Marita Canedo, Migrant Justice • Alissa White, Gund Graduate Fellow, Gund Institute for Environment, University of Vermont • Tom Bellavance, President, Ag Venture Financial Services, Inc.235240241242243244245247248Date: Monday, November 23, 1:15-2:45pm ET Session Title: Cross-sector partnerships for developing and scaling food system solutions in the northeast US Main Outtakes of discussion: • This panel represented a constellation of actors that are vital to advancing sustainable food systems solutions. • Collaboration among key academic, private sector, policy, civil society, and on-farm partners is necessary to advance solutions and move sustainable food system ideas into broader action. • The discussion focused on values and value-creation. Panelists described how partnerships generated real and tangible economic, social, and environmental value. • Panelists highlighted the potential for greater value creation and capture because of the synergy that arises from the interplay between different partnerships. • The kinds of partnerships discussed can transform what happens in a food system. Partnerships can catalyze a shift from transactional steps and interactions that surround the activity of growing food on a farm to deeper, more regenerative relationships among businesses, consumers, farmers, farm workers, and the farm ecosystem. This results in amplifying value for the many stakeholders. • The session explored innovative food system solutions that can be replicated and scaled, such as: o Innovative market mechanisms to enable farming practices that regenerate soil health; o A pioneering farmworker-driven labor standards program in the U.S. dairy industry; o Research programs on the social dimensions of food systems that show how and why farmers adapt to environmental change. Bold Actions we will take: 1. Develop and implement frameworks that allow farmers to capture the fuller value of what they produce and the contributions of the farm’s operation 2. Ensure farm workers share in the value that’s created 3. Design market and policy systems to enable farmers to adopt soil health through ecological and regenerative practices on farms 4. Build stronger connections between consumers, farmers, and farms so that the market values appropriately and the distribution of value is equitable through the value chain Note: Many stakeholders have important roles in realizing these bold actions. For example, an effective framework in the first bold action requires farmer and farm staff participation, business recognition and distribution of the value created, policy that supports the creation of new markets and adoption of practices, and research to inform program design and evaluation.

2021-02-10 12:54:07204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/1260/203

68163711400353301074469832403304018253159713330

Act with Urgency The disruptions to food systems caused by Covid-19 have exposed the vulnerabilities in food systems across many African countries. This called for swift response from HIRED Consult to convene this dialogue for stakeholders and industry players! Commit to the Summit The outcome of the dialogue and discussions was to contribute to the overall preparation of the Food Systems Summit and by the end of the Dialogue period, Stakeholders and Participants will have identified the practices and policies that will have the greatest impact on the achievement of the desired future vision within their local food systems. Be Respectful The Dialogue took place in the form of discussions between a diversity of Stakeholders to explore convergences and divergent views on the guiding questions under discussions. Each participant was listened to, ideas and points were collectively welcomed. Diversity and Inclusion formed the foundation of the dialogue! Recognize Complexity Though Food Systems is complex in nature, the dialogue sort to unpack the systems in to smaller units thereby making each person fully grasp what is needed and better position Food Heroes to contribute meaningfully! Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity Building on diversity and inclusion, we opened up to every stakeholder possible including Chefs, Refugees, Farmers, Youth Voices as well as Foresters. Complement the work of others We cannot work in isolation when dealing with food systems. By working on a common goal and vision, we were able to address other underlying other global processes relevant to food systems. Build Trust Based on shared principles of accountability and transparency, we had an open and safe space for every to feel comfortable engaging with one another.The dialogue made sure to embrace the rich diverse group of people from across the African Continent though we had other regional representatives. Building a comprehensive and inclusive dialogue also calls for morally dictated principles, and that was were we factored every aspect of the Principles of Engagement!The Principles of Engagement are a critical component THAT SERVES as the guiding moral metrics for an engaging dialogue. An dialogue that does not conform and adhere to these principles cannot be accepted as a true reflection of Food Systems Dialogue

Yes

234238242244248251The focus of the Dialogue was on: (i) environmental and economic shocks on African Food Systems caused by global pandemic (ii) examining gaps and functionalities of African Food Systems (iii) a comprehensive exploration of key players of Food Systems (including Chefs, Refugees, Youth Voices)235238241242243244245246247248249250251KEY FINDINGS: 1. Africa’s rural areas and food systems will have to play a bigger role in absorbing young job seekers than they did in other regions, given the continued growth of rural populations. 2. There are more Opportunities in food systems for youth but very little is seen across board KEY RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Invest not only in education but also more broadly in sectors such as transportation and energy infrastructure to create inclusive food system opportunities. 2. Create more vibrant rural economies, support policies and initiatives aimed at enhancing youth’s long-term economic prospects, which in turn will cultivate trust in government among young people to build resilient food systems. 3. Focus on broad-based growth, not just on youth, to create an economic environment in which food system businesses can thrive and generate jobs for both young and old.2362382392402412422432442452462472482492502511. contribute to human health by preventing food-related diseases due to either malnutrition or overconsumption. Action to be taken by each and everyone of us. No one is left out of this action point 2. deliver good quality of food in order to meet consumer and cultural aspirations. Action to be taken by Government and agencies in the food sector 3. provide decently rewarded employment across the supply chain, with skills and training. Action to be taken by Business owners, and Government237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Strengths and vulnerabilities within food systems Many were of the view that the vulnerabilities in food systems is due to bad governance whereas others also stated otherwise it is due to non-existent policies of what actually a food systems is Areas that need further exploration More participants had the notion that Food Systems was all about food. With experts in the dialogue, they were able to grasp few understanding of the general scope of food systems. This means more explorations needs to be done to further educate and highlight the importance of a robust food systems to productivity and efficiency Practices that are needed for food system sustainability Some of the submitted different answers were good governance, youth inclusion, realistic policies, technology and education. Stakeholders whose interests should be prioritized According to some participants, Youth must be the first prioritized whiles others made cases for Farmers as the first to be considered as without farmers, no food production.

2021-02-10 14:40:23205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/4531/70

80153530344688451362512112551343924210

Urgency. The FOOD research program is commissioned by the Prime Minister's Office; the government program stresses the urgency of action in regard to the SDGs. Commitment. The ongoing civil society consultations of the FOOD program got new impetus from the awareness of a possibility to have a say in the global summit process. Respect. Many of the participants know each other from the previous meetings. In a small country this is often the case an it is considered advantage for the society. Complexity. Participants did ha experience in discussing these issues and were well aware of the complexity of the task. Inclusiveness. It was clear that a number of aspects were not covered by the participants, even though certain participants raised points outside their own professional of regional circles. A particular difficulty is to reach actors of new type of businesses, as they tend to be less organized. Complementarity. Collaboration with the Academy of Sciences is synergistic and cost-efficient. As there was an existing process of dialogue it was only logical to join forces for mutual benefit. Trust building. There is a long tradition of civil society consultations and dialogue in the country. It is proven to build trust between interest groups and various parts of the society.look aboveIt is useful to join forces with existing actors and processes. (No need to invent the wheel a second time). Scientists are likely to be working in the same field of problemacy as the FSS. Therefore it is important to provide the researchers with a channel for getting the research results a global audience.

NoAs explained above, the curator and the Academy of Sciences joint their forces for the dialogue, end therefore the topics needed to be adapted accordingly. This turned out to be a good practical choice, as the participants were already familiar with the dialogue practices. The chat window of the Teams meeting facility turned out to be a good way to collect a variety of views. It was actively used and the content was saved for further use.

234238239240241242243244246248249250The research program FOOD of the Academy of Sciences is commissioned by the government. It is expected to give policy advise for further implementation of the government program, where sustainability and the overall set of SDGs is central. Therefore, the main focus for the program was to identify urgent research needs for policy advice. As for the FSS dialogue, this served for the phase 1 of the national dialogue; collecting information and data, perception of the state of play and identifying the participants for the dialogue. The discussions, together with the search for existing documentation, helped to get an overall image of the situation. A compilation of existing research and data is attached to this feedback. Also, a report on the discussions is attached. Research challenges: What are the policy instruments to advance SDG targets? How to make change attractive for the actors in the food branch? How to bring along those who are hit by the change? What is the suitable pace of change, taking into account the urgency and the consequences for those who will loose. How to make consumers behave according to recommendations? How to combine national interests and global climate objectives? The complexity and interlinkages between "tracks" makes it necessary to discuss without silo thinking, even under a specific Action Track.235For the phase 1 of the dialogue, this served well: a bunch of links to existing research and documentation was collected. There is a need to enlarge the spectrum of participation. Agreements, commitments, policy choice is to be dealt with in the next phases of the dialogue. For the FOOD research program it was useful to get advise for further research.236Please find outcome of the discussions in the attachments: 1. Compilation of relevant existing research and documentation 2. A research report on indigenous peoples' food systems 3. Points raised at the dialogue working groups237Look above

2021-02-13 01:56:40204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/2025/56

0294101150010000051142000202100003021130001020

La mission s’était déroulée en quatre grandes étapes, à savoir, 1. La sensibilisation des parties prenantes ; 2. Identification des Experts Sectoriels ; 3. Pré-structuration du groupe des Experts multisectoriels et visite d’entretien ; 4. Tenue de la session du dialogue proprement dite. Pendant la session du dialogue, le déroulement des travaux avait privilégié l’approche participative, s’appuyant sur des exposés, des travaux en groupes suivis de débat en plénières et des interviews des participants.La Concertation avait un caractère inclusif, représentatif et transversal, c´est à dire nous avons privilégié l’aspect « tous – acteurs et l’inclusion de plusieurs parties prenantes » Etat, secteur privé, société civile, Université-Étudiant et système des Nations Unies, pour créer l’adhésion et l’appropriation de tous les participants aux travaux. Il y a eu, en premier lieu, un exposé d’orientation sur la problématique, la vision, les objectifs, et résultats final du sommet sur les systèmes alimentaires ; par la suite deux présentation en plénière sur les thématiques clés ; s’en est suivi les discussions et échanges participatifs, adoption et mise en commun des travaux ; le tout suivi par un plaidoyer auprès des autorités nationales et partenaires actifs impliqués.« La vulnérabilité et la pauvreté sous toutes ses formes sont des maux qui rongent les communautés congolaises en général, et celles de 145 territoires ruraux en particulier. Il convient aujourd’hui, face à l’impact de la COVID-19, de reconnaître que malgré sa bonne volonté d’actionner le redressement national à partir de la base, l’Etat ne pourra pas tout faire. Du reste, l’État ne doit pas tout faire. L’initiative des opérateurs privées doivent être encouragées, y compris au niveau des partenaires paysans producteurs agricoles et ruraux pour booster le développement intégré de l’économie rurale en RDC. D’où l’idée de rechercher et promouvoir des modèles structurant et innovants d’agrégations et Partenariats «

Yes

234238239240241242244245246248249251La tenue de la concertation a respecté les lignes directrices et les recommandations de référence des Coordonnateurs. Le dialogue était conduit de façon interactive en mode atelier- animation ; ce qui a permis l’implication active de tous les participants aux travaux du dialogue et voir même, l’appropriation par toutes et tous des résultats de cette activité en RDC. Les jeunes ont été sensibilisés au programme d’appui dans l’agroalimentaire et la promotion de l’agriculture intelligente face au climat. Les Étudiants en sciences agronomiques dans la salle étaient eux aussi, incité à installer des projets agro- alimentaires et à restituer les résultats du dialogue auprès de leurs paires dans les universités, avec les professeurs et les parents. Le modérateur avait permis à tout le monde de s’exprimer librement et tous les points de divergence et de convergence ont été émergé dans la satisfaction de toutes et tous. L’approche genre était également au rendez-vous, les femmes et les hommes s’étaient exprimés parfaitement sans aucune barrière. Les causes et déterminants de la sécurité alimentaire ont été abordés dans les moindres détails ; les facteurs en interaction pour améliore les systèmes alimentaires, éviter les gaspillages et améliore l’état nutritionnel des enfants, femmes, jeunes ont étaient également abordés. Les discussions-échanges et facilitation des groupes, avaient abordés au même moment, les interventions agricoles respectueuses de l’environnement et la nécessité d’adopter les bonnes pratiques agricoles intelligentes face au climat, pour la sécurité alimentaire, les revenus et l’atténuation des nuisances humaines sur l’environnement et émissions des gaz à effet de serre. Tous les axes de la concertation avaient démontré que ce sont les revenus agricoles qui permettront d’améliorer durablement les conditions de vie de population congolaise. Imaginer une République Démocratique du Congo, où la population vivrait mieux, tout en préservant l’environnement et généralisant l’application de bonnes systèmes alimentaire, à tous les niveaux : national, provincial, et des collectivités locales.235238239240241242244245246247248249251Il sied de noter qu’il existe un défi agro-alimentaire majeur pour la RD CONGO.  Les conditions naturelles sont pourtant particulièrement favorables aux activités agricoles ;  Les précipitations en quantités suffisantes (qui permettent deux saisons culturales par an) ;  Important réseau hydrographique, fertilité des sols ;  Large ensoleillement. Le pays se caractérise également, du fait de sa taille, par la diversité des conditions climatiques et géologiques, ce qui permet une grande diversité des cultures. Triste paradoxe de la RDC : La population vit en deça du seuil de pauvreté et ne mange pas à sa faim ; MAIS, seulement 10 % du potentiel agricole du pays est exploité ; Les données éco-climatiques sont partout favorables à l’agriculture. Ce qui veut dire, qu’en terme de besoins et manifestation d’intérêts de la partie gouvernementale, il y a une manifestation et un engagement formel à ce que la décision d’étudier certains aspects spécifiques des systèmes alimentaires de manière plus approfondie. Donc, il y a bénéfice d’urgence de lancer les activités d’envergure du Climate-Smart Agriculture (CSA)en RDC, pour soutenir la sécurité alimentaire et nutritionnelle et renforcer la résilience des communautaire236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Les résultats aux sujets de discussion ont rapporté que la RDC pourrait devenir l’un des plus grands pays agricoles de la planète car elle a l’opportunité de mettre en place des techniques durables qui sauvegardent l’environnement et la durabilité des systèmes alimentaire. Ce qui justifie à suffisance l’intérêt que toutes et tous les participants avait manifestés lors de la session du dialogue du 7 janvier 2021. Cependant pour obtenir de meilleurs résultats et assurer la durabilité des actifs créer par la tenue de ce dialogue des Experts multisectoriels, une meilleure organisation et le renforcement des capacités des communautés au niveau national, provincial et local, par la formation et le suivi dans les différents domaines et pistes d’actions coché (1,2,3,4, et 5) d’intervention du CSA dans les systèmes alimentaires est nécessaire et urgent pour la RDC. Ces interventions devraient se faire dans l’ensemble de 26 provinces et la capitale Kinshasa. Les partenaires d’interventions seront le Gouvernement, les privés, la société civile /ONG-Femme et Enfant, et les partenaires techniques et financiers, ONG Internationales et locales intervenant dans le domaine de la sécurité alimentaire. En raison de nombre de ménages en insécurité alimentaire, l’élaboration du Cadre Stratégique et la mise en place du Plan d’Action de la RDC pour renforcer la sécurité alimentaire et éradiquer la pauvreté est urgemment souhaitée. Ce Plan d’Action permettra la mise en cohérence de toutes interventions visant le développement et promotion des systèmes alimentaires durables.237238239240241242244245246248249250251Durant la concertation du 7 janvier 2021, la facilitation et l’approche adoptée avait permissent une meilleure compréhension commune et inclusive de toutes et tous participants. Il sied de noter qu’il n’y a pas vraiment des points des divergences au point de dégager deux tendances, mais, certains ont affirmés que malgré la modicité du budget alloué aux secteurs du Développement Rural et de l’Agriculture un accent doit être mis sur la recherche scientifique par le mécanisme de subvention des Instituts Nationaux de Recherche Agronomique au pays. La stratégie et le plan d’action qui sera bientôt élaboré serviront de support pour la promotion des systèmes alimentaires durables en RDC.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/DRC-IFSSD-7Jan2021Nala.pdfhttps://7sur7.cd/2021/01/09/kinshasa-long-femme-et-enfant-organise-un-dialogue-independant-sur-la-securitehttps://actualite.cd/2021/01/07/rdc-long-femme-et-enfant-organise-un-dialogue-sur-la-securite-alimentaire-avec-leshttps://www.linkedin.com/company/solutions-for-congohttps://m.facebook.com/Solutions-for-Congo-Action-de-Femme-ET-Enfant-Ong-111205207233062/?ref=bookmarkhttps://actualite.cd/2021/01/07/rdc-long-femme-et-enfant-organise-un-dialogue-sur-la-securite-alimentaire-avec-leshttps://actualite.cd/2021/01/07/rdc-long-femme-et-enfant-organise-un-dialogue-sur-la-securite-alimentaire-avec-les

2021-02-17 08:41:58204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/2337/93177

54312122232631317302142111001067921829

The BoT organizing team has selected a group of young and motivated individuals already (or ready to be) projected into the realm of food systems and provided them with a safe space to discuss, openly and creatively, the way forward for a more sustainable and resilient future. As such, both the organizing team and the participants understand the need to act with urgency and are committed, either personally or professionally, to contribute to the vision, objectives and outcomes of the FSS. The BoT participants aim to be agents of change and wish to contribute to the outcome of the FSS. David Nabarro’s intervention during the first BoT virtual meeting clearly inspired them and helped them better understand the process behind the Summit. In the organization of the Dialogue, the BoT organizing team made sure to embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity by inviting participants from different countries, backgrounds and sectors, including but not limited to civil society, government, academia and the private sector. It must be pointed out, however, that the Dialogue has been organized and carried out with a focus on the youth and on the Middle Eastern – Mediterranean region geographically speaking. The facilitators selected were all part of the organizing team, and had been briefed with attention to ensure the creation of a safe space conducive for dialogue based on respect and trust. A number of ‘principles’ for discussion were shared with the participants at the beginning of each sessions to foster this sense of inclusivity, mutual respect and trust. These included the need to complement the work of others, build on what the person before has said, challenge only when you have an alternative to propose, and finally seek compromise in order to arrive to a unifying message.The dialogue focused on the future of production, transformation and distribution, whilst maintaining consumption as the entry point. The Dialogue is part of a broader set of workshops and events organized by the Bites of Transfoodmation team, which aim to take into account and discuss different aspects of the food systems, thus recognizing their complexity. The final aim is to achieve a political intention of the group, in the form of a Manifesto and Lines of Action, which will take a holistic and systemic approach to food systems transformation. Yet, as the very name Bites of Transfoodmation suggests, the idea is to propose some ‘bites’ of change which are coherent to and reflect the vision of the group of young change-makers and the themes identified by the group as key. The principles of inclusivity, respect and trust were reflected in the design and roll-out of the Dialogue and have been an essential feature of the entire Bites of Transfoodmation process. The participants have not only been included in all stages of the project in a transparent and inclusive way but have been its very center. A real sense of trust has been created along the way, and this could be witnessed during the Dialogue for the participants felt they could express their views freely and openly, even when these did not necessarily reflect the views held by others. The Bites of Transfoodmation organizing team has received a lot of positive feedback from the group and is looking forward to the next Dialogue, which will take place on February 17th.Thanks to the fact that there is a team working exclusively on the Bites of Transfoodmation project, a lot of information and knowledge sharing is able to take place both between the participants, and between the participants and the organizing team. The organizing team has ensured that various different avenues and spaces for exchange are created, both during and in the build-up to the Dialogues. This has definitely contributed to building trust as well as to keeping the momentum, engagement and commitment of the participants high. Our advice to other Convenors would be to make sure, if possible, that there is a strong point of contact between the Dialogue participants and the Convenors. This allows for participant feedback and continued interaction after the workshops and Dialogue so that the ideas can be further refined, and knowledge further shared. Furthermore, it seems to be a valuable approach to choose participants with a diverse background in order to permit exchange about different realities, while working towards compromise and unifying elements.

Yes

234238239240241243244246247248249250251The narrative that has emerged in the last years shows a massive reduction in biodiversity, a de-link to seasonality of consumption, more food sophistication, and a reduction in the time we devote to prepare food to adjust to our increasingly busy and quick lifestyles. Food used to be the main element of societal and family gatherings, and has slowly become more a matter of feeding and keeping us fit. This trend is also the result of globalization of trade that came about with colonization and reduction of the costs of production, opening the path to shifting from primary sector based economies to cheap labour based industrialization. After the Second World War and up until the 1990s, this trend was further accelerated by the massive use of marketing strategies, the fast urbanization of the population, the reduced average size of family units, the growth of pre-cooked food with the de-linking between rural and urban areas, all intertwined with rapid economic and tertiary sector growth. In this context, big data was already starting to influence and enforce specific narratives. Did this narrative work? Yes - but fundamental elements such as equity and sustainability were missing in the equation. The narrative started to change in the 1990s focusing on a technocratic language, slowly starting to shift the focus towards sustainability (ESG in financial terms), as well as to an increased rights-based approach to food while feeding a fast growing and urbanized population. What about the narrative of the future? Our first two BoT worshops showed us that the future of food is an indicator of the new macro-narrative which tells us that time has come to embrace diversity, bring about a culture of empowerment, assure that in anything we do we are considering the true cost of what we are doing, and this implies that we need to rethink our habitats. Why? Because we feel the requirement to do it and more importantly, we also can. We have all we need to do this. We have better knowledge of the true costs and the trade-offs; we are going towards personalized diets determined by health considerations; we know that inequalities exist and increasingly define social determinants of health related to food consumption; and that food marketing can be better tailored to drivers of sustainable modernization of food-related processes. The major focus of the Dialogue was to discuss the future of production, transformation and distribution systems keeping the evolution of consumption patterns as an entry point. Participants were helped to project themselves into this subject by two showcases, namely a Swiss valley that reorganized its social fabric and structure with local organic farming and processing and the experience of a zero waste catering based on a defined traditional contest. The discussion was focused around four main questions/discussion topics: a) How can we link the need to rethink our urbanized habitats to evolving production systems? Will be proximity and diversification of production a way to unite consumers and producers? b) Speaking about true costs, is food waste prevention and reduction a way to create awareness and commitment by both citizens and authorities? c) In the evolution towards sustainable urban life habits, how will key components of civism like empowerment and rights based approaches be affected by traditions and innovations in the food chains? d) Will reduction of inequalities in terms of food consumption depend on a total reshuffle of the transformation and distribution chains?235238239240241243244246247248249250251The Dialogue was characterised by rich and animated discussions. The variety of participants' profiles in terms of background and profession allowed mutual learning and paved the way for new perspectives, while confirming the relevance of some central points such as the importance of embracing diversity through new and adapted traditions, to bring about a culture of empowerment and social proximity, to consider the true cost of what we are doing and the need to transform and adapt our habitats. Participants acknowledged the need for a change of narrative, with a stronger focus on embracing diversity, bringing about a culture of empowerment, and rethinking our habitats while reconsidering the value of food with the lenses of a true cost approach. This implies that we look at sustainability, a key feature of a true cost based economy, beyond a technical ESG approach. For this, an increased awareness, passion, curiosity, knowledge and inclusion in all sectors of the food systems are guiding features. Tearing down the invisible wall that has traditionally divided urban and rural areas, means linking sustainability with social proximity, where enacting through food a virtuous cycle of civism, responsibility, connectivity and education, will lead to new forms of social fabric. One way to get there might profit from initiatives aiming at setting up a new tradition pattern, where our natural need for a sense of belonging couples with the revaluation of ancient know-how blended with innovative approaches. Often this can happen with an initial incentive, thus with a political will. Critically in this respect are pre-conditions, where inequalities and power concentration is persisting as this might be a frustrating factor, especially in terms of accessibility. Changing the status of food from commodity to public good, might help. After all, food is a recognized right. This recognition leads to taking into account its true cost but also its true value. A fresh look into production, transformation and distribution towards a healthy and sustainable diet for all will bring us to profound systemic changes. During the Dialogue, particicipants embraced the two real life examples of Valposchiavo and Altatto as positive and future-desirable realities. But how can they be connected, multiplied and expanded? Imagine the world of the future as one big and dense fabric, made up of smaller economic, social, natural and governing fabrics or networks. Within each of these, small, independent and well-functioning realities, such as Valposchiavo and Altatto, stand ready to be connected with one another. Common elements and shared values as well as communication, exchanges, new standards, incentives and norms enable this connection and ultimately form the building blocks of the world’s fabric. By creating more of these realities and reinforcing the density of the different fabrics, a unifying vision for a more sustainable and resilient future is both communicated and enacted. We keep hearing that these realities can not grow because they rely on a romantic perception that can only work on a small scale and among the wealthiest of the world. What about reconsidering the concept of the notion of scaling up? After all, the interconnectivity, the access to know-how, the change of the perception of reality introduced by the digitalization era is showing that, while an acceleration in terms of classic scaling up is occurring, at the same time a tissue of new forms of interconnected local economies blending new traditions, social proximity, sustainability and affordability is growing fast. To have an inclusive conversation and truly embrace diversity, thus avoiding a Eurocentric (or romantic?) vision of the future, we must discuss and dive deeper into the topics of inequality, power concentration and accessibility.236238239240243244248249250251There is a strong need to focus on avoiding conflicts between urban and rural areas; trying to create a denser bond between theses two realities and destroy that invisible wall that divides them. Rural and and marginalised areas should have access to new technologies, while urbanized habitats should be reorganized with an eye on nature and urban/peri-urban food production and processing. Education and trust should be the entry points to create new important supply opportunities and consequently a higher quality of life for all. We define this approach using the term of social proximity. This implies more sensibilization, awareness, passion, curiosity, knowledge, and inclusion in all sectors of the food systems. A controlled and responsible use of new DNA editing technologies is accepted, only if these will not compromise traditions, typical products, biodiversity and health.236239240241243244246248249250Waste and losses of non-renewable resources do not exist in ecosystems. By considering the true cost of food (including externalities such as human and natural resources, transport, health, subsidies), the system will not produce food waste and losses anymore as the price will be too high. A solution would be to have shorter and more circular supply chains, exchanging only the goods necessary for every community to have a healthy diet. We need transparency and trust, accompanied by a change in regulations in a way that waste and losses are considered either as expensive or as a resource to close a loop. We need to reconsider the status of consumers as queens and kings and accept what natural resources can give us without compromising their ability to do so for next generations. Lastly, concrete initiatives to reduce food waste and losses (such as the app "Too Good To Go”) are useful if they bring the system closer to the true costs of food, thus as a transition instrument.236239241244248250251Tradition is a dynamic and complex concept due to its constructed nature. For this reason, it cannot be said that tradition and innovation are opposed, because the latter needs the former and innovation has always been part of development. The future often draws inspiration from the past and it would therefore be more accurate to speak of innovations as "new traditions". Moreover, innovation is necessary when the current situation does not produce sustainable results. In order to link tradition and innovation to create a better future in terms of food production and consumption, cooperation between the different generations is necessary as much as the reform of the education system. Finally, responsibility lies in our personal choices and for this reason it is essential that all those who care about the world and our future take a few small steps in the right direction.236238239240241243244246247248249250251Producers need to be paid and supported in such a way that they can have a higher financial gain for their labor and work. This will also give them more autonomy in selling their products to a greater majority of people at an affordable price. Distribution needs to change its current way of working, namely to take the best products (in terms of product and nutrient quality) and send it to the bidder of highest price (wealthy nations or wealthy neighborhoods). In order to achieve this transition, we need to give education and access to all communities, not just those with status, power, and wealth. We need to further connect networks of people, producers, consumers, distributors so that there is transition of information along the value chain, transparency, care, and understanding about how a product is made. This will imply changing the status of food from commodity to public good. There is a necessity for change in terms of how we frame our food system. We can do this by collecting data at all points in the supply chain. This data should not serve as a marketing strategy or profit tool for retailers / brand owners but rather as a way to shape food and trade policy to support local communities, create new financial instruments to support producers, and create information that is useful for consumers.237238239240241243244246248249250There were few divergences within and amongst the discussion groups, but participants highlighted some critical areas of divergence that involve difficult trade-offs: 1) The tension between locality/resiliency and affordability in order to scale virtuous food systems especially in light of population growth. 2) The tension between the efficiency of highly technological food systems vs. going back to nature and the multiple benefits in terms of health and environmental of diversification. 3) The trade-offs in terms of what are most important issues to tackle in terms of distribution practices: the competitiveness of low-cost imports versus local production versus the need to ensure efficient and nutritious food distribution; etc. 4) The risk of over-romanticize certain professions linked to agricultural production and farming as this over-romantization risks to impede connecting traditions which are revitalized by innovative approaches. 5) The trade-offs between consumers’ access (buying capability) and producers’ income. 6) The question on how to reshape and redefine agricultural and production incentives (including subsidies). No clear answers have been identified to address these challenges, however there has been consensus that the majority of these questions could be better approached by using a true cost approach. These aspects will be explored further in light of the redaction of Bites of Transfoodmation manifesto.

2021-02-18 10:24:24204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/2880/93

148012706158662105316113328915152132114102020151251216

The event was organized to convene between 100-150 guests to ensure the most diverse exchanges on the selected theme. The theme has been selected as a cross-cutting issue to the Summit and to generate some conversation outcomes across the Action Tracks. Each participant was encouraged to engage in a multi-stakeholder process and for each discussion topic to: a) Scope the problem that is the subject of their breakout room. b) Identify ways to solve the problem. c) Identify a collective action they can take that could be submitted to the Food Systems Summit action tracks. d) Identify a policy recommendation to the Food Systems Summit.After the opening remarks and fire starter panel, participants were divided into sub “tables” in their own breakout rooms to discuss their topics and report back to the main room. There was a moderator and rapporteur in each breakout room to ensure everyone had an opportunity to be heard and voice opinions. Points of divergence were heard and noted in an open and productive manner.1) If breakout rooms are a part of your event. Ensure to have greeters in each breakout room to ease the start of the conversation and ensure guests are not left alone in a room. 2) Arrange for your rapporteur forms to follow the FSDs gateway feedback form to ease the reporting back and ensure the principles of engagements are adequately covered.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Food finance interventions in both the public and private sector do not yet add up to a coherent and commensurate response that will lead to a thriving, sustainable global food system. We need to tackle inefficiencies in the way food systems are financed, rapidly shift capital out of the old economy and into more sustainable food assets. We need to clarify additional capital requirements to transform food systems, disaggregated for different geographies and Action Tracks. While many measures are individually constructive, they are not shifting capital at the scale and speed that is necessary and we need targeted interventions to unlock/redirect public and private capital. This dialogue has allowed for guests to exchange on the below five topics. ACCELERATION Support to food systems financing through initiatives focusing on blended finance, digitalization, data, and long-term investment needs to accelerate with institutions, public/private financial service providers adjusting /developing systems and approaches. Actual accelerators active in the space of encouraging entrepreneurship and new ideas were present, though often are not joined up to global financial institutions. This need for acceleration is closely linked to finance as it will require the clarification of the costs of reforming food subsidies (both implementation and compensation costs) towards subsidy/taxation mechanism that offer positive incentives for sustainable food systems. DERISKING Many developing markets have challenges raising capital and farming itself is exposed to a wide range of risks because agricultural production relies heavily on the natural resource base and climate conditions. We need to appreciate the various sources of risk in the natural as well as institutional environments and address these as well. Similarly, shocks to the market from both domestic and international sources can result in price volatility. This directly affects the economic returns from agriculture, the livelihood of farmers, and in the long run, the capacity of farmers to invest and innovate. Derisking private sector financing could mobilize, an estimated, over $2 trillion of private capital towards food system transformation. INCLUSION Ensure inclusion of women and youth specifically around financing and access to finance. Support for financial inclusion also requires a systematic approach to impact measurement, including indicators for inclusivity, as well as information on financial and agricultural performance, and that calculate the true value of food. The World Bank recently made available the Global Financial Inclusion (Global Findex) database to measure and track the progress of financial inclusion. There are some indications that financial inclusion only helps to lower poverty and income inequality when overall economic conditions empower people to use access to finance for productive purposes such as expanding a business. NATURE POSITIVE Supporting farmer transition in adopting more sustainable agricultural practices through attributing real value to the stewardship of nature will be paramount if food systems are to respond to the Action Track work streams of protect, manage, and restore. A move to nature-based solutions will require efforts to achieve zero emissions, regenerative agriculture, and emphasis on a circular bio-economy while maintaining economic viability. VALUE CHAIN FINANCE The shift to long-term sustainable financing requires focus on inclusion and integration across the entire value chain while creating new financial services.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251ACCELERATION Governments, financial institutions, research centers and investors as a whole need to partner to accelerate growth in the nutritious food production sector by facilitating access to funding. Banks typically must operate with a financial regulatory framework which, effectively, prevents banks from engaging in business activities that may have significant risk. Many ‘acceleration’ initiatives would not pass these regulatory hurdles and risk is the critical factor preventing ‘accelerated’ financial participation. Governments have a key role to play to provide the right environment to promote new financing modalities as even successful start-ups and high-growth opportunities must often be self-funded because the financial industry shows no interest until a threshold of EBITDA is attained. The need for acceleration will require the clarification of the costs of reforming food subsidies (both implementation and compensation costs) towards subsidy/taxation mechanism that offer positive incentives for sustainable food systems (payment for environmental services of food systems, better pricing of land and water; taxes for environmental degradation; and polluter pays principle for greenhouse gases) and financing for income support to poor households to increase the affordability of nutritious diets. DERISKING A strong political signal/leadership is needed to draw attention to opportunities in the middle of the value chain that can help to link changing consumer demand with the need for market-based incentives for farmers to take on risk and adopt new practices, inputs, food products, and processes. The environment farmers work in is full of risk and high borrowing rates compound the risks to farmers, and lenders in any case are unwilling to take on risk and prefer highly liquid or marketable collateral. There are various sources of risk in the natural as well as institutional environments and these need to be addressed. Technology can play an important role by providing specialized instruments that redistribute risk or directly cover against important specific sources of risk. It can also help by reducing transactions costs and hence the cost of borrowing, and by improving transparency in market functioning and reducing information asymmetries among borrowers, lenders, and other market intermediaries. It is important to take a larger perspective, embracing the whole value chain from production, transformation, distribution, and consumption. INCLUSION Ensure inclusion of women and youth specifically by addressing the problem of capacity building, especially for youth and startup companies and ensure that the voices of the youth are heard. This also includes the access to financing for women, improve their ability to start business and capacity to prepare a business plan etc; need for education for women; access to technology for women in rural areas; legislation to ensure that women can access the finance. NATURE POSITIVE A move to Nature based solutions will require the following: efforts to achieve Zero emissions; regenerative agriculture; and emphasis on a circular bioeconomy while maintaining economic viability. Therefore, its necessary find ways to valorize nature-based solutions – such as attributing value to biodiversity, carbon sequestration (carbon trading systems exist but the methods to reliably measure are not yet available). Other options include green bond issues, carbon credits and sequestration which could all create income for farmers to cover costs of transition – for ex. planting cover trees and using their carbon sequestration capacity to generate income while other crops grow to maturity underneath. There is a need to harness assets and technologies that were not available 5 or 10 years ago to develop out-of the-ordinary solution thinking: use of satellites/drones to monitor progress across multiple small holding reserves; and cheap monitoring sensors that were not previously available to help with issues like fertilizer, water, soil carbon etc. Academia and food producers must collaborate to reflect the realities at different scales for better policy and impactful finance. VALUE CHAIN FINANCE Value chain finance is obstructed by high transactions costs arising from lack of information, lack of understanding and trust between participants, lack of standards and regulations, and simple logistical challenges, all of which make it hard to measure and manage risks (as required to allow financing to flow). The responses mainly focus on different ways of reducing these transaction costs. Technology is key to overcoming informational challenges leveraging also financial innovations and improved warehouse receipt systems, improved regulations and standards also help overcome information gaps.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251ACCELERATION Risk is the critical factor from start-up through scale-up with, typically only 4% of the funding comes from government. To get private sector engaged Government can and needs to play the role of catalyst and specifically focused on risk reduction, not just investment risk but also government stability within and across regions as the agriculture sector is highly fragmented, with diverse and context specific production, financial and investment costs. Incentives are needed to encourage banks to provide faster and context specific financing to SMEs. Government needs to play the role of catalyst and specifically focus on risk reduction. Banks typically operate with a financial regulatory framework, but this framework prevents them from engaging in business activities that may have significant early-stage risk as is the case in agriculture. To overcome regulatory hurdles to supporting early-stage companies and start-ups banks sometimes participate in higher risk financings by forming arms-length investment arms or by attracting other financial institutions to provide financing. Creating a financial structuring vehicle through partnerships which are geared at establishing a pool of individual loans can de-risk them and will attract investment.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251DERISKING To get the world’s small farmers to drive a food systems transformation, their situation, characterized by high risk and extreme consequences of failure, needs a strong political signal to draw attention to opportunities to link changing consumer demand with the need for market-based incentives for farmers to take on risk. There needs provision of greater incentives for financial institutions that understand farming to provide new instruments that support new practices, inputs, food products, and processes. Blending of public and private finance can lead to new financial instruments that increase the size and tenor of loans for transformational (as opposed to incremental or otherwise insufficiently large) investments.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251INCLUSION Governments should invest in educating the youth on business, technology, and entrepreneurship from an early age. Capacity-building especially among women and youth through training to resolve the lack of human resources and technical skills for easier access to finance is critical. Such education usually takes place at the tertiary level, but this is considered too late. This includes a focus on CFS Voluntary Guidelines on land tenure which could guide country policies on land governance and land tenure.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251NATURE POSITIVE Governments need to invest in developing tools and methods that create a level playing field globally and that can be used to valorize nature-based solutions. Public sector needs to provide standards and framework to define the prices of food by focusing on water, nutrition, and emissions. Investment in big data informatics and analytics can help with true pricing on natural capital/natural resources to quantify better the value of nature positive approaches, inclusiveness, or positive nutritional outcomes designed to position the primary producer. Investors and donors should prioritize climate-smart investments across food systems and value chains. Green bond issues, carbon credits, and sequestration should create income for farmers to cover the cost of transition to more sustainable agriculture. Affordability is key for many consumers so assess the risk of food prices going up.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251VALUE CHAIN FINANCING A strong functioning middle value chain contributes to derisking; value-chain aggregators can help overcome scale-efficiency issues and can support collective action among producers. Multi-sectoral partnerships are needed for storage and food preservation, re-insurance, innovation, and technology transfer. Financial needs assessments are required for funding programs to ascertain if they match needs of farmers as well as tailor-made solutions, recognizing local context. Encourage digital payment options such as mobile banking to reduce information asymmetry and link warehouse receipts to financial system to support farmers’ access to credit.237238239240241242Not many areas of divergence were brought up due to time constraints. On the topic of derisking, there was debate whether the fund would be better directed toward small enterprises, which clearly have need, but lack the resources and know-how to become an engine of transformative change. A strong case was made for investing in mid-sized firms that have the capacity and demonstrated staying power to lead transformative change now. These firms have the best chance of driving and catalyzing transformative change. Trade was emphasized as highly important, but there is a sense that the Summit process is not paying adequate attention to this topic.

2021-02-19 08:18:05204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/4202/68135193

03221125111011321722115310822227

Core sector representatives of the Ethiopian Food system, and development partners including Global panelists were invited to get the maximum input and contribution from stakeholders. Moreover, research findings were also presented to participants, to g.et scientific and customized suggestions to address the FSS issue.The event and its objectives were communicated to participants ahead of time, and they were well prepared to provide useful inputs during the meeting.Engaging Global panelists, development partners and practitioners are very useful to incorporate best practices and insights.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The major focus was on discussing current Food system in Ethiopia, challenges opportunities and game changing solutions for future actions. Best practices from international experience, and research findings were presented. Global panelists and background paper produced by the FSS core group were presented for discussion that led to recommendations to produce a position paper for FSS.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251 Similar dialogues to be conducted in the coming couple of months engaging private sector players.  The current task team will synthesize and share the proposed Game changers to the panel.  H.E Dr Lia will establish a multi sectoral actors’ task team to develop a National document.  The task team will Identify partners/multi stakeholders to develop a medium and long-term action plan with multisectoral dimension, and actors including financers.  The national document will be presented to the panel to further develop various program documents. All panelists and participants committed to continue supporting the Food System initiatives in Ethiopia.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Possible Game Changers for Actionable, Scalable and Sustainable Food System.  Combine the agenda with N4G and let the public and the private make a pitch, bringing different players together and make changes.  Massive stimulus for private sector engagement through creating enabling business environment, trade policies based on best practices, science, innovation, incentives including tax holidays for more fresh foods.  Support public procurement for promoting healthy diet, as a way understanding of access to healthy foods.  Support and Introduce Bio fortification to add nutrients to staple foods, and Introduce Cold chains solutions for vaccine, and all sorts of fortifications.  Attract Small and medium enterprises through innovative financing to produce diverse nutritious foods.  Support R&D, and nurture Larger businesses in Eth to make informed decisions on investment, Industrial Parks to produce more nutritious foods.  Policy reviews, to ensure actions are coherent, not only nutrition and diet, but also water management, education, and other policy agenda. Example, the successful initiative- the Sequta Declaration.  Support nutritious foods supply at workplaces, industrial parks, canteens.  Reinforce social protection including school feeding programs.  Influencing African union to get FTA implementation.237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Increasing the number of private sector players for similar dialogues is agreed by dialogue participants.

2021-02-20 23:41:46204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/2160/50

76845194423420201140449427282110314

Bien avant d’organiser le dialogue indépendant, nous avons participé aux sessions de formation organisées par l’équipe des Nations Unies en Charge du Dialogue. Après la formation sur la coordination, nous avons procédé à la formation des facilitateurs et de l’animateur, tous membres de l’ONG conformément au manuel des concertations mis à disposition sur la plateforme du sommet. Certains membres de l’ONG ont également participé à la formation en ligne pour renforcer leurs compétences. Des séances de préparations ont eu lieu avec les communautés rurales pour mieux comprendre le processus et les principes des dialogues sur les systèmes alimentaires. Les sujets abordés étaient en rapport avec les domaines d’activités des communautés liés aux systèmes alimentaires à savoir la production, la commercialisation, la transformation des produits locaux, la gestion des déchets etc… Le jour du dialogue, l’animateur avec l’appui des coordonnateurs a présenté les principes et les objectifs du dialogue aux participants. Cela a été relayé également dans chaque groupe de discussion.Agir avec diligence ; nous avons informé la communauté que ce dialogue pourra être utile dans les échanges au cours du sommet mondial sur les systèmes alimentaires. S’engager pour le sommet ;nous avons échangé avec les participants sur le processus du sommet mondial sur les systèmes alimentaires, sur les objectifs et bien entendu sur les différentes actions choisies dans le cadre de ce sommet. Être respectueux: les discussions avec les participants se sont déroulées dans de bonnes conditions avec le respect des uns et des autres même si certaines opinions étaient divergentes. Il y’ avait une courtoisie dans la prise de parole entre les participants. Reconnaitre la complexité: les participants étant de différents secteurs activités du système alimentaire ont compris la complexité du système alimentaire. Adopter l’inclusion des parties prenantes. Effectivement les participants communautaires exerçant dans différents secteurs d’activités des systèmes alimentaires se sont joints à d’autres parties prenantes au cours des discussions. Compléter le travail des autres. Les participants dans les échanges ont su qu’il existe des innovations dans les différents secteurs des systèmes alimentaires dont ils pourront aussi s’en inspirer. Bâtir la confiance: Nous avons discuté avec les participants sur la disponibilité de toutes les informations sur la plateforme dédiée au sommet.Notre dialogue a été organisé dans une communauté rurale dans le village de Gboyo dans le département de Jacqueville qui est un village dont les activités principales sont la pêche l'élevage, l'agriculture et le commerce. Nous avons été confrontés à des difficultés que par expérience nous avons gérées. Nous devions trouver des traducteurs locaux qui pouvaient bien expliquer le processus et les principes du dialogue aux participants. Nous avons donc organisé plusieurs séances de travail avec la chefferie locale avant le démarrage de notre dialogue pour s’assurer qu’il comprenne mieux le processus et les principes. Ces séances de travail, nous ont permis d’identifier des traducteurs locaux qui étaient à la fois des autochtones et des allogènes. Nous avons été confrontés à une autre difficulté liée à l’absence de certains facilitateurs formés à la veille de l’évènement pour des raisons indépendamment de leurs volontés. Le coordonnateur, son adjoint et l’animateur se sont donc transformés en facilitateurs pour le bon déroulement du dialogue.

Yes

234238239240241244245248251Notre dialogue s’est focalisé sur les pistes d’action 1,2, 3 et 4. Les discussions sur l’approche communautaire des systèmes alimentaires d’ici 2030 ont permis de comprendre la vision des communautés rurales des systèmes alimentaires. En effet la projection pour une amélioration des systèmes alimentaires tient compte des difficultés constatés à leur niveau sur les questions de production, de disponibilité de terre cultivables, de conservation des produits frais, de transformation des produits locaux, de la gestion des déchets, de la pollution de la lagune, de l’intensivité des activités de pêche, la non diversification des produits vivriers et également la commercialisation des produits qui met en mal la disponibilité des produits alimentaires sur le marché local pour des régimes alimentaires sains . Les communautés dans leur approche ont émis des idées qui pourraient impactés de façon positive leurs secteurs d’activité mais aussi fournir en quantité suffisante des produits alimentaires en vue d’améliorer les régimes alimentaires d’ici 2030. Ces solutions sont entre autres : la mise en place d’une brigade locale pour veiller sur la lagune sur des risques de pollution lié à des individus, l’appropriation des techniques culturales innovantes durables respectueuses de l’environnement pour faire face à la réduction des terres cultivables, une inclusion financières importantes pour les activités, une autonomisation des jeunes et des femmes, une production accrue à travers la mécanisation des moyens de transport qui reste rudimentaire pour les activités comme la pêche, la réutilisation des déchets agricoles pour le compostage, la production de biogaz et l’alimentation des animaux.235238239240241244245248249251Le dialogue indépendant mené avec la communauté rurale de Gboyo a tenu toutes ses promesses car elle a vu la participation de plus de 70 personnes exerçant dans divers domaines d'activités du système alimentaire au niveau local. Il faut noter que cette communauté est une communauté cosmopolite composée de populations autochtones et allogènes. Sa situation géographique à proximité d’un parc national et en bordure de la lagune a été bénéfique pour mener notre dialogue. 1) Les participants au cours des discussions ont retenu que les activités de pêches, d’élevage et agricole doivent rester durable tout en préservant l’environnement. 2) les parties prenantes doivent travailler ensemble pour favoriser un meilleur revenu à ceux qui sont dans les différents secteurs par la subvention des produits d’entretien et des engrais. 3 Aider à la mécanisation des moyens de transport pour la pêche.5 favoriser la transformation des produits locaux pour pallier aux problèmes de conservation surtout dans les zones rurales qui ne dispose pas d’électricité. 6) Aider par des programmes de diversification alimentaire à autonomiser les jeunes et les femmes. 7) les parties prenantes doivent travailler en synergie sur des programmes d’éducation nutritionnelle mais surtout permettre aux zones rurales d’accéder à des techniques innovantes pour pallier aux difficultés de terres cultivables. 8) les parties prenantes doivent s’impliquer davantage dans les questions de gestion de déchets surtout en zone rurales. La consommation des produits sains et nutritifs à travers la diversification alimentaire au sein des communautés rurales revêt d’une importance capitale surtout qu’elle permet de maintenir la population dans un bon état de santé. Il est important d’améliorer les connaissances des communautés sur les bonnes pratiques culturales et les bonnes pratiques nutritionnelles à travers des programmes bien établis. La reconversion des jeunes et des femmes dans différents secteurs activités agricoles comme les jardins potagers, l’élevage reste important. Les associations ou les coopératives villageoises doivent être encouragées pour une bonne inclusion financière des activités liées aux systèmes alimentaires d’ici 2030.236238239240245248251La question de la transformation des produits a été abordée dans le groupe de discussion dédié à cette thématique. A travers les échanges, les participants ont notifié que certains produits issues de la pèche ne sont pas transformé mais vendu frais sur le marché. Par contre d’autres produits de pêche généralement les petits poissons sont fumés pour être conservé et vendu directement ou transformé sous forme de poudre sur le marché local. Le village ne disposant pas d’électricité est confronté à des problèmes de conservation. Pour les participants, ceci est un handicap car ils peuvent développer l’activité autrement. Pour les produits d’élevage comme les porcs généralement, ils sont vendus sur le marché sans être transformés sous forme de saucisse. Les produits qui subissent la transformation sont le manioc mais les difficultés d’acquisition de matériel de transformation limite une production massive. Comme perspective les participants envisagent d’accroitre leurs productions par l’acquisition de matériel de transformation et surtout par l’acquisition d’électricité qui pourrait davantage régler les problèmes de transformation auxquels ils sont confrontés.236241244La gestion des déchets issue des produits de pêche, de l’agriculture et autres est chaotique pour les participants. Les participants ont signifié qu’ils n’ont pas de dépotoirs pour les ordures ou des déchets issus des produits de la pêche et de l’agriculture. Généralement, ils déversent ces déchets dans la lagune et selon leur dire, ces déchets pourraient servir à l’alimentation des poissons. La notion de gestions des déchets est donc problématique surtout pour les participants, ils n’ont vraiment pas de notion de gestion de déchets. Les déchets du manioc par exemple sont utilisés dans l’alimentation des animaux. Les participants dans l’ensemble souhaiteraient assainir leur environnement et surtout ériger un centre de compostage pour l’agriculture et bien entendu produire du biogaz à travers les déchets.236238239240248251Les participants à ces discussions sur la diversification des produits vivriers ont mentionné pour ce qui concerne la zone que la production de manioc est plus accrue que les autres produits maraichères du faite que l’alimentation de base de la population est le manioc. De plus en plus, on ne trouve pas de terre cultivable et donc même pour le manioc la production locale ne suffit pas. Ils sont obligés de payer le manioc dans d’autre contrée. Il existe des marécages dans la zone et donc personne ne cultive dans cette zone parce qu’il ne maitrise pas la culture du maraichers. Les participants étaient unanimes qu’il était important de diversifié les cultures vivriers surtout qu’elles peuvent être très rentable et aider les jeunes et femmes à être autonomes. Les perceptives de grande production viendraient des techniques innovantes de culture.236238240241245249250Les pêcheurs, premiers acteurs dans la commercialisation des produits de la pêche ont relevé la raréfaction des ressources de la pêche (crevettes, poissons, crabes) depuis un certain nombre d’années. En effet, de plus de 20 kg de produits pour une journée de pêche, il y a environ 10 ans, ils se retrouvent souvent avec moins de 2 kg ces dernières années, avec la taille des produits de plus en plus très petite. Selon leurs explications, cela est dû aux changements climatiques et à la surpêche. Cette surpêche étant non seulement liée aux moyens utilisés pour la pêche (mailles de filets très petites qui attrapent les alevins, utilisation de produits toxiques non conventionnels, etc.) ; mais aussi à l’augmentation du nombre de pêcheurs. La surpêche empêche les ressources de bien se développer. Ils ont aussi soulevé le problème de la conservation de la production ; le village ne bénéficiant pas pour le moment de l’électricité. Pour les commerçantes du village intervenant dans la commercialisation, elles voient leurs chiffres d’affaires baissés puisque la quantité de produits disponibles s’est effondrée depuis quelques années. Elles aussi sont obligées de vendre à crédit aux grossistes qui viennent de la ville qui n’achètent pratiquement jamais cash la production. Elles aussi ne sont pas à mesure de conserver les produits du fait du manque d’électricité et sont donc obligées de vendre à vil prix les produits frais demandés par les grossistes. Pour les commerçantes, une inclusion financière importante avec l’accès aux crédits leur permettra de mieux mener les activités.236238240241245Concernant la conservation des ressources halieutiques, les participants ont relevé que les produits péchés dans la zone sont les poissons (carpes, machoirons), crevettes et les crabes. Les produits péchés sont fumés ou conservés dans des glacières avec de la glace là-dessus. Les poissons, crevettes et crabes sont vendus directement avec des acheteurs. Ceux qui ne sont pas vendus sont conservés dans des paniers. Ils sont ensuite réchauffés et vendus trois jours plus tard sur les marchés environnants du village d’Irobo. Pour les participants le village doit être électrifié car y habite plus de 2 000 personnes. Ils pensent également dans les perspectives de se fédérer en mutuelle pour les intervenants de la chaîne de la pêche (fabricants de matériels de pêche, pêcheurs, vendeurs) afin d'avoir accès aux crédits bancaires. Cela pourrait Impacter leur cadre de vie avec un accès de la population a une meilleure santé et un bien-être social.236238239240245248l'un des points abordé était l'offre des produits issus du maraicher. Les participants sont unanimes que pour l’offre des produit vivriers, il est insuffisant au regard de la demande locale. Ces produits sont le manioc, la banane, l’aubergine, le piment, la tomate, le gombo l’arachide et le maïs. Les cultures se font généralement dans les basfonds afin de profiter de l’humidité. Les jours de marché sont prévus tous les mercredis et permettent aux habitants de commercialiser leur production et d’acheter ce qui leur manque. Les terres dédiées à la culture maraichère sont insuffisantes. Les terres cultivables sont utilisées pour les produits de rente (Hévéa, palmier à huile, etc.) ; La période favorable aux cultures s’étend de juin au mois de janvier suivant, et celle défavorable, s’étend de février à mai. Le changement climatique perturbe également ce calendrier ; La rentabilité des cultures est faible par manque de produits d’entretien et d’engrais, Il se pose un problème de conservation des produits car il n’y a pas d’électricité et le village n’est pas desservie en eau potable ; Les parcelles de culture ne sont pas sécurisées et souffrent de vol récurrent de quidam. Les participants ont recommandé que des terres soient réservées exclusivement à la culture maraichère et que les produits d’entretien des plantations soient subventionnés pour réduire leur coût (engrais, herbicide, fongicide, etc.). Les agriculteurs ont également besoin de formation sur l’itinéraire technique des cultures afin de mieux produire, Que des systèmes de canalisation soient encouragé pour la maitrise de l’eau afin de produire en contre-saison.236238240245248Pour les participants, les produits commercialisés en général à GBOYO sont l’arachide, Le manioc et l’attieké qui provient de la transformation du manioc. Pour les participants, l’attieke qui est le l’aliment de base connait des difficultés de vente. Les femmes sont nombreuses à commercialiser l’attiéké et il n’y a pas de clients en dehors des villageois. Celles qui ont pu se réunir en coopérative arrivent à écouler leur marchandise à des clients venant de la ville. Les produits sont souvent vendus au prix proposé par le client et donc entraine une mévente. Les participants souhaitent s’organiser en coopérative ou association pour commercialiser rapidement leur production à des personnes venant des villes et même d’autres pays et aussi acquérir des matériels de transformation pour produire l’attieké en grande quantité.236238240244245Sur le sujet des terres cultivables, le village étant à la limite d’un parc national et de la lagune, il est ressorti des discussions que la disponibilité des terres cultivables reste problématique surtout pour ce qui concerne l’alimentation de base qui est l’attieke transformé à partir du manioc. Les femmes sont obligées d’aller très loin acheter le manioc. C’est une zone à grande production de culture de rente tel que le palmier à huile, le cacao et l’Hévéa et donc limite la production de produits vivriers. C’est pourquoi dans les échanges certains participants ont proposé comme solutions de trouver des techniques culturales qui pourraient augmenter la production des produits locaux sur le peu d’espace cultivable et également dans les espaces des cultures de rente comme l’hévéa. Cependant d’autres participants sont restés sceptiques sur la question de production massive sur le peu d’espace cultivable car pour eux ils n’ont pas encore été confrontés à ces techniques innovantes qui respectent l’environnement.237238240249Les pêcheurs ne sont pas unanimes sur une vision commune de leurs activités. Ainsi, certains parmi eux aimeraient que leurs activités soient règlementées en interdisant la pêche durant certaine période de l’année tout en leur finançant d’autres activités secondaires tel que l’élevage et l’agriculture vivrière. D’autres en revanche, n’envisagent pas une autre activité si ce n’est la pêche. Cependant, ils aimeraient tous avoir les moyens financiers pour motoriser leurs pirogues traditionnelles afin de mieux exploiter les étendues d’eau auxquelles ils ont accès.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/DSC_0267-scaled.jpghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/DSC_0128-scaled.jpghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/DSC_0305-scaled.jpghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/DSC_0332-scaled.jpghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/DSC_0236-scaled.jpghttps://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/2160/

2021-02-23 10:46:59205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/2568/23

The Dialogue was organized to solicit inputs and insights for the Food Systems Summit and to gain an understanding of ideas on pathways to food system transformation, along with challenges contributing to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The Dialogue brought a diversity of stakeholders from the Government, Private Sector, UN Agencies, Developments Partners (Donors, INGOs and NGOs), Civil Society and Academia – working across the food system from production to consumption. The Convenor and the team went through the training for convening the dialogues to reflect that the reflects were incorporated and enhanced during the National Dialogue.The dialogue reflected most aspects of the Principles, which particularly includes Act with Urgency, Commit to the Summit, Be Respectful, Recognize Complexity, Embrace Multi-stakeholder Inclusivity. Bangladesh was the third country to host the National Dialogue on Action Track 1, followed by the USA and Cambodia which demonstrates the urgency and the commitment of the state. In terms of Being Respectful, the six working groups facilitated during the National Dialogue focused on nutritious and safe food, with a broad lens ranging from production to consumption (seed to stomach) as well as vulnerabilities and inclusion. As a result, the linkages with other tracks were also discussed during the working group facilitation. The Chair of the Action Track 5 emphasized on resilience and climate change at the National Dialogue. In Recognising Complexity and Embracing Multi-stakeholder Inclusivity, the policy makers, public sector, private sector, UN Agencies, INGOs, NGOs, Civil Society Organisations and Academic highlighted the significance of working in coordination. In addition, the importance of incorporating the voices of the youth and need to bring system changes to mitigate the challenges linked with food system and its complexities formed an important part of the discussions and deliberations. In one of the working groups, emphasis was placed on generating further evidence related to food safety. As the first national workshop was to familiarize with the UNFSS and Action Tracks, the Complementarity of the Work of Others among stakeholders will be addressed through the subnational dialogues to strengthen coordination and collaboration among different stakeholders to work collectively. As part of the process, after the subnational and individual dialogues, the secondFirstly, the National Convenor of Bangladesh focusing on Action Track 1, recognises that it is crucial to organize dialogues with participation from multisector and multi-stakeholder agencies, considering the complexity of food system. In addition, it is critical to develop a small working group with multiple stakeholders, including private sector and youth to show the interconnections between the different action tracks. It will create the options to facilitate dialogues on different issues around food system, beyond merely focusing on one action track. The principles of engagement for learning is highlighted in the feedback of second question.

Yes

234238241242243244246247248249251The major focus of the dialogue is to improve food and nutrition security through food system approach. In the discussion of the dialogue, Action Track-1 i.e. ‘Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all’ was considered initially. However, connections with the other Action Tracks were also considered for the improvement of food and nutrition security situation in Bangladesh. In the group discussion session of the dialogue, the following six thematic areas (discussion topics) were considered: i) Availability of diversified, safe and nutritious Food; ii) Transformation, delivery, access and role of private sector; iii) Vulnerability and inclusion (youth, gender, hard to reach areas, disability, social safety net); iv) Consumer behaviour; v) Nutrition and food safety (rules, regulations, compliance); vi) Governance and coordination. For ensuring access to safe and nutritious food for all, it is important to include all vulnerable population in the social protection programme. Government of Bangladesh has given emphasis to support people affected by the flood, drought, natural disaster, other adverse climatic events. In addition, it is also important to support people residing in the marginalized and geographically hard-to-reach areas, and families which are economically and socially vulnerable to food and nutrition security. Communities afflicted by food insecurity for a long period of time are very prone to suffer from depletion of their productive assets and health, disruption of education of children and youth, and diminished future productive capacity and income. A well-targeted nutrition sensitive social safety net program is needed to prevent food and nutrition insecurity along with re-building their productive assets. A well-designed target program can benefit the disadvantaged and vulnerable groups especially children, adolescents, lactating mothers, aged, disabled, minorities, those living in remote marginalized areas, urban slums, and displaced migrants. Besides, special training programs and agricultural sector rehabilitation and mitigation measures could benefit these vulnerable and excluded people.235238241242243244246247248249250251Bangladesh has achieved the status of self-sufficiency in terms of food production. It is the high time that Bangladesh should go for food quality rather than quantity and move towards healthier nutritious food production and consumption. For this reason, it is important to focus on food system approach to ensure food and nutrition security and to achieve all 17 SDGs. Like most of the countries in the world, existing food system of Bangladesh is based on quantity, so it is essential to convert the quantity based food system to quality based food system. Food supply chain including production to consumption and all steps need to be considered and other components of food systems like food environment (including food availability, food accessibility, food quality), consumer behaviour and diet should be prioritized for better food system. The role of multisectoral and multi-stakeholders in national development is significant to ensure nutrition sensitive food system. Having effective coordination with private sectors including all players of food supply chain and involving civil society, scientists and academia are likely to bring more innovations to the existing system and add value to the important task of achieving food and nutrition security. Thus, creating an enabling platform for multi-stakeholder engagement is required to strengthen national food system and ensure safe and nutrition food.236238239240241242243244245246247249251• Availability of diversified, safe and nutritious Food: Outcomes - Diversified, safe and nutritious food needs to be made available for vulnerable people through the proper nutrition sensitive food system. It is essential for nutrition and food safety to be incorporated in the interventions related to agricultural production including fisheries and livestock. - It is essential to establish adequate number of cold storage/warehouses for proper storage of perishable food items. It is also important to ensure diversified use of agricultural commodities which can be enabled by establishing location specific agro-processing industries. e.g., mango juice plant in Rajshahi and Chapainawabganj and pineapple processing plant in Modhupur and Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT). - It is vital to improve the transportation and logistical systems for agricultural product to minimise spoilage during transportation. - Expansion of the production of captured fish need to be ensured to get nutritious fish as the culture fish production is increasing rapidly which does not contain adequate micronutrient while captured fish are tastier and more natural. - Establishment of sanctuary for captured fish particularly in haor, baor areas is essential. During dry season some portion of haor, baor can be dug out for preserving and protecting mother fishes, which could increase production of captured fish. - Excess vegetables produced in haor (wetlands) and char (islands) areas can be processed and dried by using solar dryer which can be made available for the consumption of haor and char dwellers. Location specific awareness creation activities must be undertaken in these areas on consumption of dried vegetables. • Transformation, delivery, access and role of private sector - It is important to establish an enable environment so that the farmers can sell their product directly to the market. Steps should be taken to allow farmers to get fairs price for their produces in the market. - Awareness building campaign for consumer should be undertaken to choose nutritious and safe food options. - In order to check food adulteration, monitoring process should be more vigilant and capacity of agencies charged with monitoring and vigilance needs to be strengthened further. - Modern food storage and processing institutions should be established, for which co-operation and a responsible attitude in enhancing food systems from private sector actors and business associations are central. • Vulnerability and inclusion (youth, gender, hard to reach areas, disability, social safety net) - Urgent action is required for vocational training and support programs for small-scale farmers to produce high-value nutritious crops, fruits, and vegetables with a special focus on the haor, baor, hills, and hard-to-reach areas. For these actions, the Ministry of Agriculture should take necessary actions and the progress could be measured by the production volume of high-value crops in those specific areas. The possible challenges include farmers’ adoption of high-value crops and marketing facilities. - A well-targeted, nutrition-sensitive, and equitable social safety net program especially for the vulnerable groups including the women and adolescents need to be run. Reducing the mistargeting of social safety net programs and increasing the food-based support program were the proposed suggestions in the participants’ discussion. An evaluation of the existing social safety nets programmes needs to be conducted. Government of Bangladesh has formulated the National Social Security237238239241242243244245246248250251From the dialogue, it was identified that the post-harvest loss in horticultural product is one of the major challenges in the food system of Bangladesh. Agro-processing have a lot of potential in the country. However, small and medium industries cannot compete with large players with a lot of marketing budget. Besides, market instability and lack of efficient market management also pose challenges for food supply chain. Moreover, inclusion and investment of the private sector is also another key challenge to address in coming years. This has also been highlighted in the Food and Nutrition Security Policy 2020. The vulnerabilities related to adverse climatic shocks and economic shocks were discussed in the group discussion. In addition to the supporting program, vocational training focusing on high-value crop production should be organized for the farmers in disadvantaged areas. Social safety net programs targeting children, adolescents, and lactating mothers should be strengthened both in the rural, peri-urban, and urban areas. Some areas of divergence discussed in the dialogue includes the following: low reduction rate of stunting, lack of awareness on proper nutrition and inadequacy of funding in nutrition specific interventions. It is also important to strengthen implementation of the acts specially Food Safety Act/BMS Act, and give emphasis on the research on pure nutrition. It is also important to provide more incentives for the food producers/suppliers. The linkages with the nutrition outcomes with the food system have to be developed as a plan on action in all the relevant Ministries, since food system is inherently complex and more than 22 Ministries implement nutrition sensitive interventions.

2021-02-24 10:08:52205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/6074/95

1612463123112113233

NoIn the Planning Subcommittee of The Council of Food, Agriculture and Rural Area Policies held on 25th January 2021, MAFF explained the outline of FSS including the purpose, the key issues of sustainable food system etc. The members of the council from various sectors made comments on that.

234238239240241242243249In this dialogue, we discussed challenges and opportunities related to all Action Tracks.235238239240241242244The main remarks of the participants are as follows. ・It should be more emphasized that Japanese diet is good not only for health but also for environment. ・To promote Shokuiku(food and nutrition education), more data and evidences showing that Japanese cuisine is excellent in environmental aspect should be collected.

2021-02-24 10:20:07https://www.maff.go.jp/j/council/seisaku/kikaku/bukai/

2021-02-24 10:16:02205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/5831/95

19712111212211377

NoIn the Evaluation Expert Committee on Promotion of Food and Nutrition Education held on 11th December 2020, MAFF explain the outline of FSS including the purpose, the key issues of sustainable food system etc. The members of the council from various sectors made comments on that.

234239243249In this dialogue, we mainly discussed challenges and opportunities related to Action Track2: Shift to sustainable consumption patterns, especially focusing on the role of Food and Nutrition Education235239244The main remarks of the participants are below. ・It is very important for every country to consider how to make domestic food production more sustainable for contributing the achievement of SDGs. ・It is important not only for farmers to promote organic farming and other eco-friendly measures, but also for consumers to understand the importance of these farmers’ efforts. ・Japan should demonstrate its domestic efforts to promote the understanding of consumers about ”Ethical Consumption”　based on the Basic Act on Shokuiku (Food and Nutrition Education). ・In Japan there is not much progress on the understanding of nutritionists and researchers about importance of sustainable consumption considering not only health but also environmental impact. The related data including the EAT Lancet report should be provided to nutritionists and researchers to promote their understanding of this issue. ・The situation that per capita GHG emissions from food current consumption pattern of Japan is relatively very low(the second lowest of G20 countries) should be widely recognized by the public and the factors of the low emission including cultural background and the way of keeping the current diet pattern should be disseminated.

2021-02-25 15:22:41205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/2723/176

800934307020600411333741323164220120432136054220060311226

Yes, the instructions for the dialogue curator and facilitators highlighted the principles.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The dialogue was in two parts - the first part was in the form of an seminar highlighting general aspects of food systems and giving inspirational examples. The second part focused more on the summit itself and circled around 10 vision statements that the participants discussed in small groups. 1) The knowledge- and innovation system contributes to increased productivity, innovation and circularity in the food chain as well as to sustainable* production, transport and consumption of food. 2) Consumers have high confidence for foods that are offered and can easily make well informed, sustainable and healthy choices at a reasonable price 3) The rules and conditions contribute to a competitive and sustainable food chain. 4) Food producers are reasonably paid and have good conditions, including working conditions, to produce sustainable and healthy food. 5) Private and public financial- and support systems, as well as rules and regulations, encourage that food is produced sustainably and is healthy. 6) Trade agreements contribute to sustainable production, transport and consumption. 7)The food system is constructed so that socio-economic prerequisites do not hinder good dietary choices. 8)The food system can handle challenges regarding food security and nutrition for the entire population, the profitability of producers as well as environment and climate change 9) Collaboration and organisation of actors in the food system contributes to healthy food that is easily available and sustainable. 10) The majority of food sold to consumers at stores, markets and restaurants is sustainable and healthy and food loss and waste is reduced or recycled through circular methods. *Sustainable refers – at all times -to all three dimensions of sustainability235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251There was a great interest in participating and contributing to the discussions. Many of the participants had concrete suggestions and proposals. Several examples of how to tackle matters of importance in the food system were shared. Around 100 suggestions, comments and proposals were put forward and are currently being analysed by the organisers of the event. The conclusions will be taken forward and further explored by regional dialogues as well as thematic dialogues. A number of trade offs were also identified for further consideration.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Please view attachment 1.237238239240241242For further information please view attachement 1.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/report-english.docxhttps://www.svenskafaokommitten.se/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/2021-02-02-fao_eng-publicering-online.pdf

2021-02-25 16:20:57204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/1589/203

88607429426503772652448862022143181320215669

To support the UN system’s efforts towards eliminating hunger, and to underscore the interlinkages between SDG 2 and the rest of the goals, the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA) held a Global Policy Dialogue in December 2020 with partners on food security, particularly IFAD, in the context of demographic change and rural development. Internationally renowned experts and professionals on food systems, population trends and rural development were invited to join as panelists to discuss this urgent and multidimensional issue. Local farmers were part of the panel as well as the interactive audience. A special effort was made to include young people in the discussion, as well. The event also served as a Food Systems Summit Dialogue aligned with Action Track 4—Advance Equitable Livelihoods and Value Distribution, giving participants an opportunity to contribute to designing the food systems of the future by informing the Summit process. To enhance engagement, the event was held on Zoom and streamed live on UN DESA's Facebook page. Participants were invited to submit questions online at the time of registration and in the Zoom and Facebook chats during the event. A survey also was conducted throughout the event, through the Zoom platform. In addition to supporting the Food Systems Summit, the results of the discussion have been shared with UN leadership and will inform future UN DESA policy briefs on the economic and social impacts of the pandemic and strategies for better recovery, as well as the Department’s support to the Decade of Action.Our Dialogue embraced multi-stakeholder inclusivity by including in the panel representatives of the UN system, academia, the private sector, civil society and, especially, farmers. The panelists included experts from all continents, more than half were women, two were youth, and half represented developing countries. All panelists treated each other with respect including during the preparatory meetings when they were invited to meet and Furthermore, the event brought together people from these multiple sectors to because UN DESA recognizes the complexity of food systems and how we need to look at the issue from a lens beyond just SDG 2, Zero Hunger. We need a broad integration of the entire 2030 Agenda, with all stakeholders' voices amplified. Our Dialogue built on the ongoing work of the UN System, in particular our work at UN DESA and that of our partner for this event, IFAD.We would recommend a journalist be used as the moderator for these types of discussions because the journalist skill set allows for sharp, to-the-point conversations.

Yes

234241244246248249251Eradicating 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 2019. An estimated 25.9 per cent of the global population – 2 billion people – were affected by moderate or severe food insecurity in 2019, 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 million people in one year and nearly 60 million in five years. and the COVID-19 pandemic has only exacerbated the problem. At the same time, food systems in their current form contribute considerably to green-house gas emissions, environmental degradation and biodiversity loss. Today, food production accounts for about a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions. Half of the world’s habitable land is used for agriculture and about a quarter of the world’s productive lands are degraded. These challenges to securing adequate nutrition to all of the world’s people, generating equitable livelihoods and adapting to, as well as mitigating climate change stand to become even more daunting. Building sustainable food systems and healthy nutrition patterns have been identified by the Global Sustainable Development Report 2019 , as one of six entry points to achieve transformational change toward sustainable development in ways that capitalize on synergies while minimizing trade-offs. On the global stage, 2021 will be a year with food security at its core. In early 2021, the fifty-fourth session of the Commission on Population and Development will take on the theme of “Population, food security, nutrition and sustainable development.” In July, the annual High-level Political Forum on Sustainable Development will review Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 2 aiming to zero hunger, along with other closely associated SDGs such as those targeting poverty eradication and climate action. Finally, the Secretary-General will convene the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit in September. To support the UN system’s efforts towards eliminating hunger, and to underscore the interlinkages between SDG 2 and the rest of the goals, the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA) is holding a global policy dialogue in December 2020 with partners on food security in the context of demographic change and rural development. Internationally renowned 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 and Value Distribution, giving participants an opportunity to contribute to designing the food systems of the future by informing the Summit process.235241244246248249251Overall, panelists stressed the importance of access to food as a fundamental right for all people and an inextricable part of achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Both food producers and consumers carry responsibility to create a more equitable food system and further noted that food producers also suffer from poverty and hunger, arising from inequalities and injustices. In order for food systems to be more inclusive, sustainable and healthy, further efforts are needed to 1) create jobs, 2) raise incomes across food value chains, 3) reduce risks for those most marginalized within the system, and 4) increase value distribution. Additionally, there must be special attention paid to gender equality in food systems, including the need to provide more opportunities for women in agricultural value chains, such as access to land, markets and decisions. Furthermore, panelists highlighted how the three components of the “livelihood-nutrition-environment triangle” are key to eradicating both hunger and poverty and said that moving agricultural production from input-intensive to knowledge-intensive systems and expanding employment efficiency and diversity into value chains are the two priority actions to ensure a positive and harmonious triangle. With regard to the upcoming Food Systems Summit, the stakeholders look forward to working together to transform a wealth of ideas, evidences and recommendations into concrete and practical solutions to advance equitable livelihoods in the food system.236241243244247249Key takeaways from Panel 1: The impact of COVID-19 and population movement on food system livelihoods The first panel discussed recent trends and challenges for ensuring sustainable food system livelihoods from a macro-perspective, in particular the impact of population movement and the COVID-19 pandemic on food systems in developing countries. With regard to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on food system livelihoods in developing countries, several panelists noted that digital tools and people’s solidarity were key to remain resilient during the pandemic. In Indonesia, Ms. Endah Murniningtyas, the former Deputy Minister for National Resources and Environment at the Ministry of National Development Planning of the Republic of Indonesia, and co-chair of the Independent Group of Scientists that produced the 2019 Global Sustainable Development Report, noted that the immediate impact of the pandemic was felt through the weakening of national food demands and the closure of many businesses such as caterers and hotels, which led to excess of food production by local farmers. However, people remained resilient by utilizing IT tools to enable “direct selling” by small agricultural producers to local consumers, which ensured many women farmers to continue their businesses and promoted youth participation as digital mediators of food value chains. Digital platforms were also utilized to donate excess food from producers to those most in need, and she cited one recent study which found about a 72 per cent increase in food donation during the pandemic. Similarly, Ms. Izabella Teixeira, former Minister of Environment of Brazil and member of the UN High-level Advisory Board for Economic and Social Affairs, noted that in Brazil, digital tools and e-commerce were utilized as part of national food value chains to connect small and organic farmers with consumers across the country. In this regard, she noted that digital platforms have a bigger role to play beyond providing supply chains and traceability of products. She suggested that e-tools could help optimize production to minimize food waste. On the impact of population movement on livelihood and food systems, Mr. John Wilmoth, Director of the UN DESA Population Division, highlighted that urbanization, which is particularly significant in Africa and Asia, has caused shifts in people’s diets from agricultural staples to more animal-based food and processed food, which requires adjustments in agricultural production patterns. Growth of urban populations is further advanced by the fact that, overall, farms are becoming larger in scale and more mechanized, which is causing declines in demand for agricultural labor and is pressuring many rural farm workers to find alternative labor opportunities in urban areas. In response to a question by the audience regarding the vulnerability of export-based food systems—an element exposed during the pandemic—panelists stressed that countries must ensure more inclusive, transparent, resilient and environmentally friendly agricultural supply chains, both at global and local levels. Furthermore, one panelist noted that producers must cater to more diversified food demands by consumers236241244249251Key takeaways from Panel 2: Sustainable rural development to ensure better food livelihoods The second panel consisted of local agricultural practitioners and researchers and a technical specialist from IFAD. The discussions focused on sustainable rural development as a pathway to ensuring better food system livelihoods, by citing practical examples and solutions from country experiences. Panelists agreed that inclusivity and equity, based on a people-centered approach, is key to ensuring better food livelihoods in rural areas for vulnerable groups including women, youth, indigenous peoples and other communities with distinct livelihood systems. Several panelists noted that skill development, including digital skills related to drones and satellite data, as well as access to finance, are important enablers for transforming farmers into competitive entrepreneurs. This would ensure better economic empowerment of women and attract more younger workers. One panelist also stressed the importance for countries to better target government subsidies to the most vulnerable to maximize inclusion and ensure equitable livelihoods. The importance of partnerships was also underscored, which would enable multidisciplinary collaboration among farmers, NGOs, governments and international organizations to design projects that can connect small farmers with international markets. Panelists noted that better coordination among government ministries is crucial because support for food systems requires the support of multiple ministries.237241251The two youth panelists strongly emphasized that more training is needed for their generation, to keep up with changing digital technologies and not miss opportunities because of lack of finance or because class is canceled because of the pandemic.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Summary-of-Global-Policy-Dialogue-Series-Food-Dec-final.docxhttps://www.un.org/en/desa/policy-dialogue

2021-02-27 07:10:32204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/2931/

2515251510521151352228113342103212

The Food Systems Summit was organized with the aim of bringing diverse individuals or stakeholders to discuss measures for Food Systems Sustainability. A virtual dialogue was organized on Zoom platform to deliberate and harvest inputs from participants on what are needed to attain sustainable food security in Nigeria through a functional Food System. It was ensured that the summit commenced at the proposed time and the activities time were adequately managed. Every resource person invited for content delivery performed within the allocated time while not affecting the quality of the session delivery. The speakers were able to deliver their content richly and participants were engaged in the chat section of the Zoom application and after the session. Strategic plans were made on the choice of speakers so as to achieve the purpose of having the dialogue, for this an academia, an entrepreneur, a change agent with experience with farmers’ challenges and cravings among others were involved in the discussion. This is to have a panoramic collection of thoughts and ideation to make a sustainable food system in Nigeria. This strategy incorporated principles, reinforced and enhanced principles on organizing dialogues.The dialogue theme “Adaptive Approaches for Food System Sustainability in Nigeria ” is an urgency call to right the wrongs in the Food Systems in Nigeria. It demands from every participant actions to bridge the gaps for sustainable Food System. Adaptive approaches were discussed and action calls have been made right from the basic unit of food production to processing down to the consumers in the system. Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity: The enrichment of the diversity of the participants encouraged a multi-facet inclusion in the dialogue, rich contents from the speakers and contributor, and complaints as they affect their respective sector. Commit to the summit: participants were pleased with the dialogue and are ready to commit to ensuring sustainable food system

Yes

234238241242244248The major focus of the dialogue was to deliberate on the measures that are needed to be implemented to make Nigeria a food sufficient country. It is lucid that there are lapses in the functionality of the food systems in Nigeria due to the food security status as caused by many factors. The dialogue was aimed to focus on the factors affecting food systems, what adaptive approaches can be done to mitigate their effects and how. The summit addressed the importance of a sustainable Food System, the implications from an erred system, the precautionary and correctional measures, and the roles of the youths to the development of sustainable Food System in Nigeria. Sustainable Food Systems The discussants were able to make clear the need for a functional and quite sustainable food system in Nigeria. The rationale for a food security was stressed given the implication on citizens and the socio-economic effects in the country. Food Systems was defined to be a complex web of different food section components and not same as Food Supply Chain. Fragility of non-functional Food System The fragility in the food system and the underlying factors were discussed. The resultant effects of the factors were practically analyzed with possible adaptive measures. Adaptive approaches and youth inclusion The factors affecting food sustainability are ever-available so, adaptive measures to respond to their incidence must be adopted. Climate Smart Agriculture, incorporation of Geographic Information System and other technologies into the Food System etc have been said to be adaptive. Purposeful collaborations with the government on approaches advancement will help better the Food System. Active participation of the youths was said will proffer solutions to the developing constraints in the food system and encourage innovation in the Food Systems.235241242244245246248249For Food System Sustainability: Pests and Diseases effects should be adequately controlled; There should be collaboration between Food Systems Stakeholders including youths and the government; There should be sufficient investment into Food Systems Research and Developments; Training on sustainable practices be given to farmers to make the Food System in Nigeria better; There should be capacity building for Agricultural Extension services; There should be adoptable policies and planning for sustainable Food Systems.236238241242243244246248In the discussion on “Adaptive Measures for Food System sustainability in Nigeria”, the following are some of the outcomes; Governance and sustainability are major issues concerning food system in Nigeria. It was said that an appropriate government intervention and adoption of sustainable measures will enhance the productivity of the Food Systems in Nigeria. The degree of food wastage negatively affects Food Security. Many food losses which debase the Food Security status of the nation results from not only pre-harvest practices but majorly post-harvest. However, value addition to food crops will reduce the degree of food wastage. It was concluded that adoption of Climate-Smart Agriculture, Geographic Information System, Technology, Crop selection etc will enhance an adaptive and sustainable Food System in Nigeria.236238240242244247251In the discussion on “Covid-19 – Exposing the fragility of our food system”, the following are some of the outcomes; A post-pandemic survey was carried out and it was discovered that there are more male farmers in the North and most farmers in Lagos State are female. This is to keep one abreast the participation of the two sexes in farming and to help during decision making on interventions. Farmers in Lagos and Benue States received supportive interventions from private sectors. It depicts that it is not the governments work alone to make the food system better, every unit, sector, party, local, zonal or national body has roles to play. Pests & Diseases, drought and flooding are pressing challenges affecting farmers and need urgent attention. Among the challenges farmers encounter after harvest is bribery to Forces for transportation of their produce to the market. This has been recurrent and even is discouraging to farmers to transport their harvest to where they can be highly valued. It was concluded that swift actions should be taken to address this act.236239241242243245246248249In the discussion on ‘’Role of policy towards achieving small scale farming sustainability: future outlook’’, the following are some of the outcomes; Policies should be adaptive and inclusive and specific to suit different communities and regions across the country. Policies should help to address issues around our local food security sustainability before exporting to the international market. Intentional promotion of framework around agro ecology as the help to preserve the soil. Creation of more sustainable engagements with small scale farmers for a swift paradigm shift as the population grows. Urgent attention by the policy makers around policy that drives small scale farmers’ productivity. There should be a strong linkage and interaction between all actors across the entire value chain for a sustainable food system using the top bottom approach.236238241242243245248251In the discussion on “Building effective advocacy youth in agriculture movement for sustainable and equitable food system development in Nigeria”, the following are some of the outcomes; Youth inclusion and intervention in the food systems will bring about a change in the trajectory because of their creativity. Collections and implementation of individual solutions from the youths will help meet our food sufficiency and sustainability needs. Youths were implored to connect and engage with Agriculture Movements to explore the possibilities of adaptive Food Systems in Nigeria.237All voices of participating stakeholders were heard and there was an open space for everyone to make a contribution. There were no points of divergence but some points were felt as very strong to those who brought them up.

2021-02-27 18:53:06204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/6540/203

1052213610144

We had a presentation which lasted 20 minutes to explain the summit, the importance of food and the power of youth in food and then we had a facilitator facilitate the discussion section with was an hour long.The discussion section allowed people to engage meaningfully, people opened up and told stories of food insecurity and solutions to food insecurity in their local area. We collectively explored solutions and our motivators. We had a diverse group of people taking part which made the discussion really interesting.Sometimes it was difficult to get people to speak so having questions and comments on hand was very helpful to get the conversation started.

Yes

234238239246247249251We discussed problems and solutions specifically grassroots solutions and what support is needed for these solutions to scale up.235238239246247248251- There's a huge issue with expired food being sold to young people in school canteens across the US this has caused a distrust of young people towards people supplying food to them. They don't believe some organisations have their best interests at heart. - Refrigerators have been set up where community members can stock food and people who need the food can take it but how can these be scaled up globally? For this to work it needs to be backed by the community. - Food needs to be linked more widely to health and wellness - Community gardens are a great solution to food insecurity and education around food. This gave the community a voice in what they wanted on their plates during the week and it gave them more choices for meals as they didn't have to pay for the food. - When food banks had to close due to under funding the community ensured that the gardens stayed open. This also allowed for inter generational learning, the longer the garden stayed open. - Indigenous participants talked about the community not having access to shops as they are just too far away so they have no choice but to eat food that lasts the longest which are the unhealthy foods. - A lot of young people only get their food meals from school so not having access to school has hindered their food security. - Some students still maintain their school garden as it give them an income as locals can buy from them. - The need for community initiatives to be supported but not to be scaled up too much as they have to stay local and not be taken over. - A lot of school feeding programmes are run t a federal level which results in a lot of food going to waste we need to make federal guidelines more flexible to local situations. - In schools before covid there were sharing tables set up so any student who had food they didn't want put it on this table and anyone could take it, this decreased food waste dramatically in canteens.236238239246247249251- There's a huge issue with expired food being sold to young people in school canteens across the US this has caused a distrust of young people towards people supplying food to them. They don't believe some organisations have their best interests at heart. - Refrigerators have been set up where community members can stock food and people who need the food can take it but how can these be scaled up globally? For this to work it needs to be backed by the community. - Food needs to be linked more widely to health and wellness - Community gardens are a great solution to food insecurity and education around food. This gave the community a voice in what they wanted on their plates during the week and it gave them more choices for meals as they didn't have to pay for the food. - When food banks had to close due to under funding the community ensured that the gardens stayed open. This also allowed for inter generational learning, the longer the garden stayed open. - Indigenous participants talked about the community not having access to shops as they are just too far away so they have no choice but to eat food that lasts the longest which are the unhealthy foods. - A lot of young people only get their food meals from school so not having access to school has hindered their food security. - Some students still maintain their school garden as it give them an income as locals can buy from them. - The need for community initiatives to be supported but not to be scaled up too much as they have to stay local and not be taken over. - A lot of school feeding programmes are run t a federal level which results in a lot of food going to waste we need to make federal guidelines more flexible to local situations. - In schools before covid there were sharing tables set up so any student who had food they didn't want put it on this table and anyone could take it, this decreased food waste dramatically in canteens.237na

2021-03-01 09:13:34205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/6079/95

182162161602

NoMAFF explained the outline of FSS including the purpose, the key issues of sustainable food system etc. to the members of the Association of Consumer Organizations (SHUFUREN) on 10th February 2021. The members made comments on that.

234239244249In this dialogue, we mainly discussed challenges and opportunities related to Action Track2: Shift to sustainable consumption patterns, especially focusing on the challenges to the completion of sustainable food system.235239244249The main remarks of the participants are as follows. (1) Many of the foods we are familiar with are imported, such as beef and palm oil produced on deforested land. In order to change this into a sustainable form, it is necessary to change the awareness of consumers. (2) We believe that changes in dietary habits and increased demand for beef and other products due to economic growth in developing countries have increased the number of livestock raised in other countries, which has become a factor in the increase in GHG emissions. Each country should promote sustainable agriculture in its own. (3) Farmers engaged in urban agriculture in Japan are listening carefully to the voices of local consumers, reducing the use of agricultural chemicals, and engaging in organic farming. Such efforts for local production for local consumption are beneficial to both producers and consumers, and should be further promoted. (4) Regarding reduction of food loss and waste, it is necessary for various stakeholders to work together. (5) The next generation who will be responsible for the future, such as young people, should be made aware that food issues are also linked to environmental issues, with the SDGs at the center. (6) The promotion of Food and Nutrition Education to support sustainable food has been highlighted in the discussions on the next Basic Plan for Food and Nutrition Education, and efforts based on this plan should be promoted.

2021-03-02 14:58:17205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/1871/194

76181217321361221813121662610231113

In recognition of the urgency of organizing the Food Systems Dialogues as contributions to the Food Systems Summit, the United States acted expeditiously to host its first National Food Systems Dialogue on January 13, 2021. The United States was the first country in the world to host a National Food Systems Summit Dialogue. The event embraced the Summit principles of engagement: Act with Urgency, Commit to the Summit, Be Respectful, Recognize Complexity, Embrace Multi-Stakeholder Inclusivity, Complement the Work of Others, and Build Trust. See below for specifics.The U.S. National Food Systems Dialogues seek to empower U.S. domestic stakeholders to participate in the preparation of the UN Food Systems Summit. The first National Dialogue, which was held virtually, embraced multi-stakeholder inclusivity and included stakeholders from across the food system, ranging from U.S. producers, agricultural organizations, food industry, research and academic institutions, farm and food workers, and civil society groups. The second and third stages of dialogues will expand the number of participants while retaining the participation of those who participated in the first. Through multi-stakeholder inclusivity, the Dialogue provided a forum in which participants could share diverse perspectives, learn from each other, and collaborate to identify challenges and impactful solutions. Small group discussions at the Dialogue emphasized respect and building trust through facilitation guided by neutral U.S. government experts and researchers. The Chatham House Rule of non-attribution encouraged participants to engage in frank discussion and a collaborative approach. Dialogue discussion topics highlighted the complex challenges and tradeoffs of food systems policy interventions and solutions. To build trust, promote transparency, and accurately reflect the voices of U.S. food systems stakeholders, readout reports and summaries went through multiple levels of review and validation. Two notetakers sent their anonymized notes from the breakout rooms to facilitators, who developed anonymized reports that were shared and validated by participants before incorporation into the final official UN Dialogues Gateway feedback form. A complementary report highlighting high level outcomes is posted on the USDA Food Systems website.The Chatham House Rule of non-attribution encouraged participants to engage in frank discussion with a collaborative approach. Only dialogue participants, a facilitator, expert researcher for consultation, and two note-takers were permitted in each dialogue breakout session. International and domestic observers were invited to observe the opening and closing plenary sessions but were not invited into the small breakout sessions.

Yes

234238239240241242243244250This report represents the views of U.S. stakeholders, it does not represent the official views of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) or United States Government. In following with the guidelines of the UN Dialogues Toolkit and ensure a systemic, comprehensive approach to assessing food systems, the first stage of the U.S. National Dialogue focused on identifying challenges to building more socially, economically, and environmentally sustainable food systems in the United States. The discussions were broken into five main challenge areas aligned with the UN Food Systems Summit five “action tracks” and structured around four general question prompts outlined below. Each breakout session focused on one of the five “action track” challenge areas. Participants were assigned to one of the five challenge areas: 1. Safe and nutritious food for all: What are the challenges in ending hunger and all forms of malnutrition and reducing the incidence of non-communicable disease, enabling all people to be nourished and healthy? 2. Increased consumer demand for healthy diets that are sustainably produced: What are the challenges in increasing consumer demand for healthy diets and foods that are sustainably produced? What are the challenges in reducing consumer food waste? 3. Environmentally sustainable production: What are the challenges in optimizing environmental resource use in food production, processing, and distribution, to reduce biodiversity loss, pollution, water use, soil degradation and greenhouse gas emissions? 4. Equitable livelihoods across the food system: What are the challenges in promoting full and productive employment and decent work for all actors along the food value chain and enabling entrepreneurship and addressing the inequitable access to resources and distribution of value? 5. Resilient food systems: What are the challenges in ensuring the continued functionality of sustainable food systems in case of natural disasters, pandemics, economic shocks, conflicts, and other sources of instability? Discussion Questions: To encourage a systematic assessment of challenges, each breakout discussion considered four general questions: 1. What are the major challenges to advancing sustainable food systems in the United States related to your major challenge area? 2. What are the primary divers/causes of the major challenges? 3. What are the tradeoffs among social, economic, and environmental sustainability objectives? What are the distributional characteristics of the major challenges? If the group discusses potential solutions that target one dimension of sustainability (for example, social sustainability), what are the potential impacts on the other dimensions of sustainability? 4. What are the evidence gaps? What kind of evidence would be needed to motivate and support action to address these challenges, drivers and tradeoffs? Does the evidence exist or are there knowledge and evidence gaps?235238239240241242243244245246248249250251The focus of the first-stage U.S. National Food Systems Dialogue was to identify challenges to improving the sustainability of food systems. While the discussion topics were organized around the five UN Food Systems Summit Action Tracks as outlined above, the discussions did not fall neatly into these silos. Instead, participants broadened the discussions to holistically consider challenges and tradeoffs across food systems, and goals related to sustainability and resilience. Three overarching challenges emerged: 1) information gaps about healthy diets and sustainability produced food, 2) inequalities, and 3) environmental degradation and climate change. • Overall Challenge #1: Information gaps about healthy diets and sustainably produced food Dialogue participants identified divergent and confusing information about healthy diets and sustainably produced foods as a major challenge. Some participants expressed concern that information gaps hinder uptake of healthier diets and the promotion and adoption of more sustainable agricultural production practices. • Overall Challenge #2: Inequalities Dialogue participants identified inequalities in food systems as an overarching challenge. Some participants identified inequality as a primary driver of disparate access and uptake of healthy diets, and as a barrier to improving the livelihoods of farm and food systems workers and expanding business opportunities in agriculture and food supply chains. Some participants expressed the view that underlying, long-standing inequalities have had a negative impact on food systems’ resilience. • Overall Challenge #3: Environmental degradation and climate change Dialogue participants identified environmental degradation and climate change as overarching challenges. Some participants expressed concerns about challenges to farmers and producers related to clear guidance on environmentally sustainable practices and barriers to international trade based on sustainability standards that are not based on science. Some participants highlighted challenges associated with the distribution of the costs of more environmentally sustainable production practices across the food system, raising concerns that farmers and low-income consumers could bear the brunt of potential cost increases. In all the discussion groups, participants discussed where they thought research or scientific evidence is needed to better characterize challenges and possible solutions. On the topic of healthy diets, some participants expressed the view that more information is needed on the effectiveness of consumer education and food assistance programs, including national data on the needs of food banks and their effectiveness serving vulnerable communities. In addressing inequity, some participants noted a lack of data on and models for investing in communities, including land ownership. Some participants noted evidence gaps related to environmental and carbon footprints of food and the links between environmentally sustainable practices and productivity yields. In each discussion group, participants discussed the tradeoffs that might arise in building more sustainable food systems – and the challenges of managing these tradeoffs. The types of tradeoffs discussed are well described in the discussion of food prices and whether they are too high or too low. Some participants pointed to the high cost of nutritious foods (perceived or actual) as a challenge to achieving healthy diets for all. On the other hand, some participants noted high rates of food waste and hypothesized that the low cost of food (some participants noted that food is like a “free good”) leads to people throwing it away. When discussing environmental sustainability, some participants hypothesized that food is too cheap since the price does not factor in the true cost of environmental inputs or negative environmental externalities. Some participants noted that because environmental costs are not priced into agricultural production—especially in commodity agriculture—there are few immediate financial benefits to producers who improve their practices. Some participants noted a tradeoff between affordability and wages, noting that low farm and food worker wages may increase food affordability but could adversely impact the economic livelihoods of those workers. Some participants highlighted the need to include diverse stakeholders, including environmental groups, more farmers, including more and BIPOC (black, indigenous, peoples of color) farmers, the financial sector, data scientists, land grant universities, food companies, anti-hunger groups, and media. Some participants agreed that knowledge gaps could be addressed by receiving input from different stakeholders.236238239240241242243244248249250Participants identified divergent and confusing information about healthy diets and sustainably produced foods as a major challenge to improving diet quality and the sustainability of food systems. Some participants noted that U.S. food systems are extremely complex, and many consumers lack clear understanding of how to achieve healthy diets and shop for sustainably produced foods. Some participants felt that labeling can cause additional confusion since many labeling claims, such as “natural,” are difficult to understand. The discussion highlighted that confusion is exacerbated by conflicting information from industry, advocacy groups, and consumers themselves. Some participants felt that these information gaps make it difficult for consumers to make informed decisions and that uninformed consumer demand could lead to less sustainable outcomes. For example, one discussion group noted that in some cases, food fads or even “food bullying” by a group of usually affluent consumers can drive food consumption trends that do not improve nutrition or the sustainability of the food system and can sow distrust and confusion. Some participants noted that misinformation about agriculture could discourage farmers from adopting new technologies that could improve nutrition and/or the sustainability of food systems, such as genetic engineering and genome editing. Some participants were of the view that misinformation about agriculture could also influence consumers’ acceptance of new technologies and that disagreement about sustainability goals could create challenges to coalition building to achieve shared goals. Some participants suggested that the reasons for divergent and confusing information include the lack of clear guidance from government and scientific groups about what constitutes sustainably produced food. For consumers, some participants hypothesized that information gaps are also driven by insufficient consumer (and school-level) education, including lack of education on existing science research on healthy diets and sustainably produced food and lack of outreach on how people can shift to healthier diets. Anti-science attitudes, low public trust, and a proliferation of misinformation were also mentioned by discussants as reasons for confusion. Evidence and research gaps identified by some participants included lack of information about best practices and opportunities for improved communication across sectors. One group noted that sustainability analysis is complicated by differing standards of evidence across environmental, economic, and nutrition and public health domains. At the same time, some participants highlighted that traditional impact analysis should incorporate a wider array of approaches, such as citizen science and traditional cultural practices, to inform policy and programs and engage actors across the food system. Some participants highlighted the gaps in dissemination of information that already exists, including on basic science, technology, and nutrition. Some participants noted need to collaborate across sectors to increase student nutrition knowledge and acceptance of healthy foods offered in school meals.236238239240241242243244245248249250251A major overarching challenge identified by dialogue participants was inequalities and inequities in food systems. Participants raised the issue of underlying, long-standing inequalities in food systems and the effect of these inequalities on access to healthy diets, fair labor and business opportunities, and food systems’ resilience. Some participants discussed that inequities in access to healthy diets can manifest in food distribution and affordability. Some participants discussed that food access could be unequally distributed with some isolated groups such as tribal reservations having difficulty accessing fresh produce and other items. Similarly, in both urban and rural areas, some participants discussed access difficulties because of location of housing and proximity to the nearest grocery store, or lack of transportation. Some participants suggested that the financial ability to access foods for a healthful diet is part of the challenge. Some participants noted that structural and systemic racism and gender-based discrimination are drivers of inequality. Some participants noted that dimensions of inequality that can detract from equal participation in food systems include unequal access to capital and credit, land and land tenure, infrastructure (roads, transportation, digital broadband), and healthcare. Some participants noted that inequity can create barriers to entry for new food producers and farmers. Some participants mentioned that public programs based on welfare models can perpetuate inequality and should instead strive for beneficiaries’ empowerment. Some participants raised concerns about the tradeoff between efficiency and resilience, citing how the closing of large meat processing facilities during the pandemic caused supply chain shocks. Some participants hypothesized that market concentration had led to a lack of resilience in food systems. Some participants were concerned about who should bear the costs of providing well-paying food systems jobs, and the tradeoffs with food affordability. Another tradeoff some participants discussed was between access to fresh food and food waste. An example some participants raised was that while the provision of fresh produce by food banks or in food boxes may increase access to nutritious, food, it may also be associated with increased food waste. Some participants noted that evidence gaps related to the effect of inequalities on access to healthy diets include analysis of the costs and benefits of investing in diet-related health promotion and disease prevention versus treatment of diet-related health conditions. Some participants suggested that evidence gaps related to the effect of inequalities on fair labor and business opportunities included lack of information on economic mobility in the agriculture sector. Some participants recognized a lack of data on how models of investing in communities work, including land ownership. Some participants stressed the importance of funding for research on innovation that increases agility within food systems and addresses distributional challenges revealed by the pandemic (some participants defined agility as ability of agricultural production infrastructure to meet the needs of farmers of all sizes). Some participants hypothesized that creative solutions from the COVID crisis include shortened farm-to-consumer chains, the increased ability of food assistance participants to shop online, and pandemic food assistance benefits for families whose children were unable to access school meals.236238239240241242243244245248249250Participants identified environmental degradation and climate change as overarching challenges to agricultural production and resilience across the food system. Some participants emphasized that variability in growing conditions due to climate change poses challenges for agricultural productivity. Some participants also mentioned lack of harmonized rules, regulatory and trade burdens, and differing uses and approaches to technology as additional challenges for global market competition and resilience. Some participants discussed how racial inequality is exacerbated by divergent exposure to pesticides, water quality, and other environmental conditions. Some participants hypothesized that a driver of environmental degradation is lack of access to infrastructure to bring diverse crops to market such as diverse marketing and processing outlets. Without diverse outlets, farmers may not be able to diversify production or redirect product to higher-valued market options. Some participants were concerned about who bears the costs and who should bear the costs of implementing environmentally sustainable and climate adaptation and mitigation practices at scale, and the tradeoffs with food system livelihoods and food affordability. Some participants asked “Is “tradeoffs” always the right lens? Are there opportunities for economic and sustainability wins or synergies?” and noted that we should aim for solutions where foods are both nutritious and sustainably produced. Some participants highlighted that meeting the needs of producers and consumers is a tradeoff, with increased sustainability sometimes meaning higher prices for producers and consumers. Some participants emphasized that when food insecurity is an issue, sustainability it not a high priority. In addition, some participants noted that imports of less expensive products from countries with less stringent environmental production protections may result in a more affordable, but less sustainable food supply. Evidence gaps identified by some participants included the environmental and carbon footprints of food and the scientific links between environmentally sustainable practices and productivity yields. Some participants discussed the need for research about productivity and sustainability to investigate the assumption that producing food sustainably inherently reduces yield. Some participants noted a lack of sophisticated modeling of the impacts of dietary shifts considering international trade and shifting demand elsewhere in the world. Some participants expressed the need for articulation of multi-stakeholder agreement around desired, quantifiable outcomes for a sustainable food system and for environmental costs to be included in agricultural production. Some participants noted the issue of evidence gaps to accelerate the rate of adoption and the diversity of applying conservation agriculture practices, as well as data to assess downstream effects of increased production and processing costs.237238239240241242243244245248249250A notable area of divergence that emerged in one of the discussion groups was disagreement about the sustainability of U.S. agriculture. One participant felt strongly that “U.S. producers are the best of the best” and do not get enough recognition on the global stage for their sustainable production practices, while some participants said that we need to recognize sustainability problems “right here in our home.” The group’s discussion started and ended with a recognition that there are no silver bullet solutions, although it is tempting to try to create silver bullets by pushing for changes that help one aspect of sustainability but not all aspects, and there was consensus on the need for integrated approaches and representation from the entire value chain. Some participants expressed divergent views and disagreement about whether the price of food is too high or too low. Some participants pointed to the high cost of nutritious foods (perceived or actual) as a challenge to achieving healthy diets for all. On the other hand, some participants noted high rates of food waste and hypothesized that the low cost of food (some participants noted that food is like a “free good”) leads to people throwing it away. When discussing environmental sustainability, some participants hypothesized that food is too cheap since the price does not factor in the true cost of environmental inputs or negative environmental externalities. Some participants noted that because environmental costs are not priced into agricultural production—especially in commodity agriculture—there are few immediate financial benefits to producers who improve their practices. Some participants noted that while the low cost of food helps with affordability and access for some, it also creates economic and social complications for low wage earners if wages are kept low to keep food prices low.

2021-03-08 07:54:17204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/5560/112

20712131721122111025122233

The independent dialogue began and closed with presentations on and about on-going initiatives that highlighted promising innovations to transform the food system. Both presentations provided space for participants wanting to engage partnerships and collaboration to reach out after the dialogue. Prior to the opening presentation, the concept of Food System was explained succinctly and simply, to ensure all participants have the same level of understanding.Commitment to the Summit and acting with urgency: Participants were encouraged to explore the Summit web page and various resources and to participate as much as possible. In addition the independent dialogue was organised as a means to have local voices heard as part of contributing to the global summit. Respectfulness: All participants listened attentively to the inputs of others, including listening to views that differed from their own. Recognizing complexity: The dialogue ensured that participants were from multiple disciplines and various levels within those disciplines,in recognition of the complex nature of even local food systems. This allowed for the identification of actions across the food system - at various levels and to be led by different stakeholders. Embracing multi-stakeholder inclusivity: Invited participants were carefully selected to include a diverse range of actors from various disciplines and stakeholder groups. Building on the work of others: The dialogue opened and closed with presentations highlighting the work of others that showed promising innovations, with participants encouraged to reach out after the dialogues to presenters to explore connections. Building trust: All conclusions from the dialogue are shared via this feedback form and conclusions are not attributed to a single individual but curated and consolidated as an outcome of the dialogue. This 'safe space' approach is a core of Youth Enterprise Services (YES) Malawi and alignEnsure participants have access to the Summit resources, so that they appreciate the approach and principles. This also helps participants to understand the importance of dialogue and that local actions can and w ill contribute to the overall Summit outcomes and actions.

Yes

234238251The YES Malawi Independent Dialogue brought together women and youth from Malawi engaged in agriculture and the food system. This included Malawian youth and women engaged in farming and agribusiness, policy makers from both the agriculture and health sectors, agricultural researchers and scientists and youth still in education. The dialogue built upon the practical work of Youth Enterprise Services (Yes), and highlighted the pervasive challenges hindering youth and women from fully contributing to transformation of the food system into one that is sustainable. Participants then engaged in discussing game changing solutions focus on a key question: How can the youth and women, in Malawi, be empowered today to ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all in the future?235238245248249251The main finding of the Youth Enterprise Services (YES) Malawi independent dialogue is that no single solution, especially on its own is a panacea to the challenges faced by youth and women in the food system. However there are game changing solutions that can go far in empowering youth and women to effective actors in transforming food systems, these include: 1. Increased access to affordable tech solutions. Current cost for access to the internet and to technological based solutions in the developing world is prohibitive. Youth and women cannot leverage technology to overcome many of the challenges they face because these are expensive. 2. Establish local information hubs that provide up to date and emerging information, in the relevant vernacular language for communities, practitioners, and traditional authorities on all various aspects of food systems and for various players (farmers, agri-SMEs, consumers, field practitioners). 3. Need for more tailored finance that is responsive to the unique needs of youth and women in developing context food systems. 4. Strong political will that facilitates the implementation of all these solutions above and which works towards putting in place a policy environment that enables creativity and the implementation of solutions that are practical and tangible.236238248249251YES Malawi discussion topic 1: How can youth and women be empowered today be empowered today to ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all in the future? Participants views are provided below: 1. Advocacy: Field practitioners should carry out massive awareness campaigns to understand the gap of women and youth exclusion in the food system; 2. Practitioners, government and private sector stakeholders should provide information to women and youth to build their knowledge and capacity to enable them to better engage in the food system. This should be with the aim of changing mindsets and equipping them with knowledge and skills to effectively participate in the food system; 3. Government should make deliberate efforts to incentivize women and youth to participate in the food system. This can be done in various way: -Legal frameworks should have a special focus on women and youth smallholder farmers for example in Malawi this can mean enforcement of the Cooperative Act to ensure the effective engagement of women and youth - Government should set up institutions to govern the marketing of agricultural products - Ensure the financial inclusion of women and youth - Government should monitor integration of the operating framework of state and non-state actors as disintegration leads to contradicting [agricultural advisory] messages at grassroots level - Promote the engagement of women and youth in seemingly simplistic innovations such as backyard vegetable farming and home Irrigation farming, which for the poorest members of society can be very empowering.236238251YES Malawi discussion topic 2: What actions need to be taken in the next 3 years to ensure the empowerment of women and youth for better participation in the food system? 1. Government support needed in various areas: - Setting up business incubation schemes for women and youth - Review existing relevant policies and ensure that youth and women roles / challenges in food systems are mainstreamed, which should the strengthening of youth and women groups and the deliberate provision of income earning opportunities for them. - Establish special loan facility for youth and women agri-entrepreneurs, but ensure effective management, accountability and impact. 2. Development practitioners and local organisations (such as YES Malawi) to facilitate the creation of cooperatives among women and youth in the food system for better financial inclusion 3. Financial institutions to develop youth focused finance packages, such as those with lower interest rates, non-traditional collateral and re-payment terms that are contextualized to the type business that women and youth are engaged in the food system. 4. Women, youth, all participants and citizens: need to play our part for a radical mindset shift. Children should be trained and groomed by families to have a better understanding of the food system and what actions they and all can take (at the local level) for resilience and sustainability. Local organisations (such as YES Malawi) need to work with community groups, traditional leaders and families to make information available and to create tools that families can tap into, tools should be relevant and in the vernacular to allow understanding. 5. Government/private sector/ Academia and Research/ private entities (such as YES Malawi): Work collaboratively to develop, market and make available low cost technologies or the mechanization of agriculture and other processes within he food system. this will make engagement tin food systems attractive for youth and less tedious for all including women (involved in the primary production stage).236238241249251YES Malawi discussion topic 3 (Off-line): How to empower youths and women in Food Systems in relation to Health? 1. Conduct action based research as an entry to programme planning and design on food and nutrition programs targeting youth and women 2. Involve youth and women in the design and targeting of all food security and nutrition action plans. this should include the provision of education about the links between nutrition and good health for individuals, groups and their families and food systems 3. Develop local food security networks to discuss and share information on food systems and nutrition and the role of youths and women. 4. Need for good leadership and political will to have youth and women empowerment programs. 5. Need for changes to policy, legislation and planning in order to: - protect girl children from teen marriages and pregnancies - safeguard and increase women’s access to, and control over, incomes and other resources - enhancing women’s and youth and women’s participation in microfinance facilities - explore creative approaches to reduce women’s time constraints e.g. provision of improved water supply - increase women’s involvement in decision making at all levels237238251One solution provided for youth and women to better engage in the food system was the lowering of standards or the contextualization of standards for food products / agricultural produce. Some felt this would limit the ability of agribusinesses from the country to effectively engage in regional and global food systems that have set standards that all must adhere to in order to have their goods enter those markets.

2021-03-08 14:37:52204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/3917/92

70032635333238

We organized the dialogue based on all the principles of engagement. We invited stakeholders from most food systems stakeholders in Israel, from farmers to academics and activists. We emphasized the importance of respect throughout all processes and chose prominent leaders to be the facilitators at each table.The dialogue reflected the urgency, respect, diversity, trust, and other principles. This manifested in the feedback we received during and after the dialogue, which was very positive, and a wish to continue the dialogues and implement the solutions.We would advise following the principles of engagements and the FSD method. We have realized it helps create a very positive and productive process.

Yes

234238239240242243244245246248249250The focus of the dialogue was food Security, Nutrition Security, Agriculture, and Climate Crisis. The dialogue consists of seven teams: 1. sustainable agriculture and food production; 2. climate crisis and food security, and agriculture; 3. Livestock food systems; 4. native food security (Arab sector); 5. Nutrition and food security for all; 6. Local and municipality food systems; 7. Food waste and food loss. The compass of our FSD was the 17 SDG's and the right to food. Proposals were focused on ensuring food security for all: assuring healthy and sustainable diets at all times, including times of crisis.235The major thems were: Theme 1: Establish a national food and nutrition masterplan to assure national and nutritional food security in the present and future. Proposal: Systematic screening and data collection, which is nutrition insecure Proposal: budget allocation to support the nutrition insecure population Proposal: reduction of meat consumption to comply with healthy and sustainable diets and transition toward Mediterranean diet. Proposal: Promotion of a holistic view, focusing on local agriculture as a primary provider of food security, with emphasis on quality and not only quantity and eco-friendly agriculture Proposal: Promotion of agricultural law and legislative infrastructure, supporting farmers' needs for local production such as stable customs on import, affordable water prices, foreign workers, and R&D, including workforce saving technology Proposal: substantial budgeting for research as a permanent part of the masterplan. Setting measurable goals in all aspects: health and nutrition, economy, welfare, education, etc.) Proposal: collecting data and researching food loss and food waste through the whole food system – from agriculture to households. Legislation of coerced treatment of food loos and food waste throughout the food systems – from livestock and plant agriculture to industrial and municipal food waste. Theme 2: the establishment of an inclusive regulatory authority for national food and nutrition Proposal: mapping and solving conflicting policies through system thinking according to the masterplan Proposal: establishing Big Data integration center to cope with the huge challenges of contradicting regulation and lack of data in significant parts of the food system in Israel (lack of data on antimicrobial resistance, food insecurity population, the nutritional composition of agriculture production) Proposal: the healthy and sustainable food basket recommendation of the Israeli ministry of health for nutrition insecurity population should be the compass for policies and implementation – fields dedicated for certain plantation (allocations of agricultural land to specific yields, guidance to which food can be donated and which food cannot be donated for the nutrition insecure population and more. Theme 3: Regulation and policies: Proposal: create incentives and penalties throughout the food system: To reduce food waste, a different waste stream system, such as households paying per weight waste, incentives for farmers to reduce agriculture waste and for consumers to buy "ugly" fruits and vegetables. Solutions such as taxes on ultra-processed food and differential VAT on healthy food create incentives to consume healthy diets on the production and consumption. Proposal: reducing food waste – promoting better consumption and purchasing through policies. Theme 4: sustainable and healthy nutritional and agricultural education for children and adults Proposal: sustainable nutrition should be part of the educational programs within the educational system from the early ages until graduation. Proposal: Allocation of resources and land in cities, especially to the underprivileged, to grow food Proposal: Education for all ages, promoting closer contacts between farmers and consumers, and changing nutritional habits that will increase local agriculture base in food security. These will be in congruence with the national dietary recommendation. Theme 5: technologies are needed to better adaptation and mitigation Proposal: to make sure the technologies that are being developed are used to support health and sustainable diets and not produce ultra-processed food. Proposal: use of technologies (special apps) to reduce food loss and food waste –including on retails, catering services, restaurants, and neighborhoods. Theme 6: healthy and sustainable livestock food system Proposal: creating a benchmark for the whole livestock: from agriculture to food waste. Including data collection and transparency to prevent Antimicrobial resistance and zoonotic disease development. Proposal: the target of lowering livestock-related foodprints should include both the imported meats and the country's local-grown meats. Theme 7: local food systems are central to the solutions. Municipalities can take part in all SDG's Proposal: since food systems are so complicated, each municipality or region must have an inclusive food and sustainability council led by the mayor and lead the region's healthy and sustainable policies. Proposal: connecting the municipals' private sector to be part of the solutions to changing the local food systems to healthier and sustainable ones. Proposal: creating incentives - financial and logistics- for sustainable treatment of metropolitan's food waste.236Food loss and food waste: In-depth analysis is needed to treat food loss in the field, agricultural depreciation, post-harvest as a critical stage, including legislation to change expiry dates system, retailer's chains purchasing systems, and infrastructures designed to detect waste optimize utilizing all products. At the agricultural level: climate changes increase depreciation (this year, the depreciation of apples in the north of Israel has reached 40% when it is usually 15-20%, caused by heatwaves). New technologies and applications are emerging, and more research and collaboration with academics are needed to find solutions to agriculture losses and find other more sustainable alternatives to preservatives, fertilizers, and during transportation and storage. Optimization of all the processes. At the policy level, we tend to set long-term goals, while in this issue, we need much more short-term goals. The situation with institutional kitchen is too many restrictions on using "old" food, because of food safety issues, it is in contradiction to the need to reduce food waste. Better mechanisms to maintain food safety and reduce food waste are needed. It is challenging to predict food amounts to prepare when it is a big institutional kitchen, so solutions to the food not eaten should be prioritized. At the public level, we need to strengthen good habits, promote sustainable cultures and find how to reach out to people and make an impact. The awareness of food waste is very low in Israel, and there is a fear of shortage. We need to connect food waste to costs and explain that it is also a waste of money. Also, emphasis on the positivity and fun part of food saving, the creativity involved. Solutions: Differential pricing, active policies, and actions inside specific target populations to reduce food waste. As for households – the solutions should focus on education and changing the culture around food storage. Urban community centers, changing agents like teachers, parents, health practitioners, and NGO's campaigns could be trained to educate for reducing consumption in all its forms. Communicate the message of the urgent need to reduce food waste at all levels. Municipalities are the main actor in changing post-harvest food waste: In retail chains, in restaurants, institutional kitchens, and households. For example, waste tax, "pay as you throw," at all these levels. An interdisciplinary council that will include all parts of the local food system is needed. How: Identifying "hot spot" for wasting (for example, specific sectors, specific ethnicities) and targeted interventions, requiting the education system to teach children about food waste, media campaigns, Local Food Council (Food Security Administration), and solutions tailored to different populations and different sectors (emphasis on the essential part that municipalities have)236Promoting sustainable local food systems and the role of the municipal authority: At the national level, processes are moving very slowly. On the municipal authority, the macro and the micro can be addressed. The municipality should lead processes of assimilating a healthy and sustainable food system. Moreover, those who need to lead this issue are the high-rank officials committed to creating in-depth changes. It is mandatory to appoint a nutritional safety and security committee in each city and publish a municipal nutrition appendix. The idea of a nutrition appendix is to form the urban specification for all aspects of nutrition – from purchasing food for feeding programs for schools, the elderly and other centers to urban community's kitchens and cooperation between authorities. We need to learn how to incentivize the local private sector and include it in the process. Food is a topic that connects communities - activities around the food systems are connecting and non-threatening. Focus shifted from food baskets to local production and local agriculture to eliminate the need for food baskets. Waste: The cost of food waste to the cities is enormous. 40% of the local authority's waste is organic waste. There is a huge saving for municipalities and individuals. Changing waste policy to the European model - those who reduce waste will be compensated, and payment will be according to the amount thrown away. The solution to food waste needs to be implemented at the municipal level first. Food rescuing: One of the main barriers is the Ministry of Health restrictions on the use of reusable utensils and on the use of saved food for the feeding program. The MOH requirements for school caterings are for a variety of 4 fruits and vegetables a week, which cannot be controlled when using rescued food. This problem can be solved by communicating and cooperating between authorities. The business sector has a powerful impact on health and food systems, and is a part of the problem - including it needs to be part of the solutions. Community gardens - this is a type of outdoor community center, a place for physical activity, a meeting for the elderly, etc. if we could turn these areas to be more productive and produce local agriculture, it can help reduce nutritional insecurity especially in low-income neighborhoods. This should happen without taking on the community nature of the garden. The refugees and statusless usually come from places that live mainly from agriculture. A high percentage of them were farmers. Giving them land to grow food on it is an idea worth more exploration. Solutions: 1.Cities should move toward edible cities or at least edible neighborhoods. Planting fruit trees in the city, together with a productive community garden. These are solutions, even if partial, for food security. 2. Municipal kitchens for educational institutions and social periphery – to support local employment and local food production. 3.Education program for a healthy and sustainable diet: returning nutrition classes to the education system. 4.Harnessing business sector, who currently detached from the urban food systems. 5.Reducing food losses and food waste by rescue food. Focus on vegetables and fruits (cooked food is more problematic for transfer and donation). 6.Cooperation is required between government ministries and local government. Part of the challenge is that the current food systems comply with supply and demand economic mechanisms.236Nutrition security, climate and agriculture: Our agriculture has to be more focused and efficient and less squander than today. The food waste including the livestock industry which partly thrown in the nature feeds the wild animals with destructive effect on ecological systems. Climate change and crisis's ahead, will influence agriculture capabilities that must be taken into account in our strategy to assure food and nutrition security for all. Israel's poultry and meat consumption are of the highest in the world, much higher than the recommended amount in the Mediterranean diet. We need to recommend reduction of meat consumption which aligns with the healthy and sustainable recommendations in the Eat Lancet report, with the target of achieving the SDGs in 2030. The Mediterranean diet (MD) is the most researched and the recommended by the ministry of health. We are able to support the population food needs based on the MD. There are multiple pressures on land use especially in small populated Israel. There is possibility for dual or even triple use of the land that should be targeted. Our strengths: Knowledge and entrepreneurship relating irrigation and soil management, replenish the missing ingredients to the soil. Weakness: Our farmer's average age is around 60. Where are the future farmers? To change we need political will. We need to turn it into a national security issue, which it is. We have to change the notion today that food is a commodity and only that free market will solve it. Threats: Chemicals in the food are a threat, but can turn to be an opportunity. As leaders in research in agriculture, we can lead precise and healthier use of biological and chemical uses in agriculture. The climate crisis will likely cause rise in food prices, as temperature rise, droughts, water shortages, fires, floods and more are tackling many areas of the world. There is a threat for change in the nutrition composition of the food grown because of the climate crisis. Solutions: Israel's agriculture can supply the core of the healthy and sustainable dietary recommendations to day and major parts in the future. Change in the livestock agriculture, where Israel is leading in Food Tech. There is a need for professional guidance to the farmers. There is a need to engage the private sector: with tighter regulation on one hand and a call to join forces for the good of all. They are part of the problem, but should be part of the solutions, based on public health interests. Technology based solution to cope with the change in quality as well as quantity. In addition to reducing animal-based food consumption, as major change towards the planetary diet pattern, there is a need to change the livestock systems to a much more sustainable and healthier. We cannot forfeit the food to the free market. The same food can be harmful or contribute to health depending how it was grown, what chemicals where used or food was fed to the animals thru their life. It is there for crucial to build a national food and nutrition strategy and plan, that will map all its needs and a roadmap to support our farmers to grow the heart of the plant based national recommended Mediterranean diet, assure the prices of the basic healthy and sustainable food basket is affordable to all. The livestock industry must transform on the whole process how it is being grown, density, food, antibiotic and medication use etc., as major factor in assuring healthy and sustainable food system.236Healthy and sustainable nutrition security: The challenges: the government does not take responsibility on the issue: there is no permanent budget or legislation to frame solution, there is no inclusive body that integrates the multidimension of the problem, data solutions, thru the different government ministries. Lack of data: How many nutrition insecure people as a permanent screening process, what kind of food baskets do they get, etc. There is lack of crucial data on how many NGOs supply food for the insecure population. What is the total budget of the all the NGOs together? What is the percentage of the food which is donated by the food industry? And how much of it complies with the ministry of health foods recommendation to be included and how much of it complies with the list of foods to be excluded from such food baskets to the nutrition insecure. Today, only the government can handle the food prices. There is conflict of interests between the importers to the local producers. Short term solutions: solutions to the nutrition insecure children at the corona crisis Long term solutions: Education – to include again, healthy and sustainable nutrition education as core subject at the education system: from the early age thru graduations as it is crucial to their development and health thru their lives. As well education for the nutrition insecure adults as part of any program for nutrition security. Inclusion of healthy nutrition demands from any food program for children or insecure population. The health aspects of the nutrition insecure population is part of any policy and program. One of the challenges is that the insecure population is not always familiar with the different pulses or even vegetables the get in the food boxes. Therefor the healthy professional nutrition guidance is an integral part is crucial. On the other side, most of the products on the food packages are consumed, which can turn to a significant vector to improve their health. There is a major question relating the whose responsibility is the nutrition security? What are the reciprocal relations between the government and civil society relating food security? The government today is working detached from the NGOs. The complexity is big. The government should guide but also establish pronounce budget to solve the problem. There is the dilemma between supporting Nutrition insecurity by food boxes or by credit card enabling independent procurement. Food rescue: is another aspect, with the need of the government to recognize of its advantages and support it. There is huge question on the ultra-processed food donations which eventually are major part of what is called "food rescue", that is given to the nutrition insecure population. However, the ultra-processed foods are in contradiction to the nutrition recommendations for health, especially for this population with high rocket rates of obesity, diabetes and all their complications. Therefore, there is a need for differentiating the policy relation food rescue, with recommendation to the government to budget rescue of fruits and vegetables and healthy food as recommended by the ministry of health, but not the ultra-processed food. We need to determine that food baskets will be based on healthy foods. Equality and dignity should be integral part of the nutrition security policies.236Traditional societies (Food systems and health in the Arab sector): The traditional nutrition and food system are very healthy, accessible, affordable, and economic, emphasizing food saving and food storage. The nutritional transition and globalization caused the disappearance of the traditional kitchen and the traditional culinary culture. The young population lacks awareness of the Arab diet culture and is characterized by high consumerism in all areas, particularly in food consumption patterns. The high accessibility to meat, which was introduced into Arab cuisine in the last years, led to the inclusion of meat in most dishes and a dramatic increase in meat consumption. People are not aware of the health and environmental consequences of this pattern. Hospitality and generosity as cultural values are manifested in the increase in food waste. The quantities of food offered in Arab restaurants are critical for the waste of food. It is recommended to develop an Arab nutrition model and promote it within the Arab sector. Simultaneously, it is important to regulate unhealthy and processed food advertisements and educate for better consumption patterns. Alongside these, we need more information– research on health, dietary consumption, and dietary patterns in the Arab sector. 50% of the children are nutrition insecure, and most of them are poor. Going back to family agriculture and family production of food could improve nutritional insecurity. A nutrition security model adapted to the Arab population should be developed and implemented, based on better nutritional screening and addressing overweight and obesity that are rising, developing nutritional orientation and solutions for the changing structure of the traditional family. Solutions: 1. Encouraging traditional home self-production, encouraging children to produce healthy nutrition in the household backyards and other lands. 2. Education programs for consuming healthy food, saving food, and reducing consumption of unplanned food. 3. Collecting data and more research about effective strategies for food security, awareness, industrial development, and agricultural practices. 4. Social campaign from bottom up. For example - the olive harvest season as a family experience, more community gardens. 5. Integration of local councils.236Animal-based food systems 1. Economics - more than half of the grain imports to Israel are for the livestock industry. Animal-based diets in Israel set dependence on imports at times of global hazards. Israel is small and populated with high consumption of meats that are not aligned with health and sustainable recommendations. 2. Health and sustainability need to set meat reduction targets based on health and sustainable recommendations and equality. 3. It is important to promote healthy, sustainable, and affordable substitutes for animal-based proteins. 4. There is a need for a transparent, professional supervisory system with accountability on all livestock food systems. The regulation has to be clear to who supervises the indicators and must be coordinated among all parts. The hazards of livestock systems endanger public health on a high level, from different pathogens such as Salmonella and Campylobacter thru Zoonosis as Tuberculosis, Anti-microbial Resistance, and pandemics such as aviation flu, the Spanish flu, and the covid-19. As we all realize today, the broken food systems, especially from the livestock industry, set a global danger and must change to suit the global resources and human health. 5. We have to solve the conflicting policies which on one side encourages meat and animal-based food consumption by incentives to the livestock agriculture and even for marketing and tax-lowering on meat and even processed meat imports, which distorts the consumer decision as the prices do not reflect the real cost of these food products. Moreover, this while the ministry of health recommends reducing - avoid ultra-processed meats as they are carcinogenic on high-level evidence-based. 6. The agriculture ministry did not take into account the environmental parameters. Lowering the import taxes on meats harms the local farmers and does not calculate health, sustainability, and welfare. 7. We have to tackle this issue in a holistic way to help all stakeholders join for the good of all. 8. There is a lack of a national holistic food policy. Each ministry works independently without any coordination. There is a need to include animals' welfare in the general policy. 9. We have to work according to safety standards for safe food. There are gaps. We do not have enough data and transparency. There is a shortage of budget to gather the data on the complex issues of antibiotic use, infections, etc. In comparison to Europe 10. The needs reliable information sources on healthy, sustainable, and safe nutrition Solutions: 1. Raising the public awareness 2. A course on sustainability and health to different governmental ministries with learning on the ground to see and learn the problems 3. Creating change in the social norms as was with other health issues 4. Find solutions to the workers in the livestock industry while reducing the production and consumption 5. Demanding transparency, traceability, ecological footprint, and reporting obligation on environmental and health hazards 6. National nutrition security authority that the livestock and animal-based food system will be part of it. 7. Annual report on the use of anti-microbial use as is in many countries. The data should be available at all times. 8. Limitations on all kinds of animal-based foods 9. Promotion of innovations of healthy and sustainable animal-based food replacements. 10. Updating the food basket under governmental price supervision to be based on the healthy and sustainable food basket based on the Mediterranean diet. Now it includes butter, cream, and salt, to name some.236Sustainable agriculture: 1. Promotion of a holistic view, focusing on local eco-friendly agriculture as a primary provider of food 2. Promotion of legislative infrastructure, supporting farmers' needs for local production such as stable customs on import, water prices, workers, and workforce saving technologies 3. Promoting contacts between farmers and consumers and increasing the share of local agriculture in food security General approach • Food security - Fresh food must continue to be produced locally • Promote Sustainable intensification • Support organic farming without the use of fertilizers and pesticides • waste separation and organic waste should be sent to a designated site to be composted in each region • Good enough is not enough in food- the emphasis should be placed on quality beyond appearance. • Smart logistics systems need to be built to support also direct agricultural marketing Legislation • Agriculture is a strategic resource - an Agriculture Law needs to be enacted, water subsidized for farmers, and direct support to farmers. • The agricultural sector, limited by rising water prices, increasing imports, and imposing fees on foreign workers, must not be neglected. The state has set goals of local production and self-sufficiency - farmers have met targets and have not been compensated • Ensure the next generation of farmers - the number of farmers has been decreased local production is not guaranteed • Agricultural land and available water must be ensured. There is a decrease in output in many crops (including crops such as tomatoes, cucumbers, onions, and various fruits) and, at the same time a large increase in price, contributing to less accessibility to fresh produce. Research is needed to understand why there is a decline in production. • Investment of public funds in agriculture should be efficient and with a significant component of R&D, including manpower-saving technology • Regional reference is needed - each region is different in environmental, agricultural and social aspects • The current focus is on the cost of food only, dealt mostly by import and causing uncertainty and unprofitability. Holistic approach, including the need to produce quality and accessible food, is needed. To this end, costumes on food products can be removed only in the framework of trade agreements. • Plans to reduce harmful food - comprehensive vision and policy advancement- are required to cooperate with all government ministries. • Focus on the quality of the food and continuous monitoring of the nutritional values of foods grown in Israel, including appropriate legislation (e.g., monitoring the selenium/magnesium values) • The state should be responsible for its food prices, which should be tailored to the poor rather than the wealthy consumer Public behavior • Education for adults as well and not just for young people - move from mostly discussing quantity and price to a holistic vision that also includes quality • Education from an early age to consume healthy foods, especially fruits and vegetables • A change in consumption and dietary habits is required to enable food security based on local agriculture, a reduction in animal food consumption and food waste • We need to strengthen the connection between people and their environment and the ability of citizens to know the sources of the food they consume • Bring the population closer to food sources and producers, and producers to their consumers237Divergence related to meat consumption reduction, focused on respectfully manage the topic. There was an opinion that today there is a tendency to "shaming" of meat consumption. Representatives of the meat alternative industry expressed this opinion. On the other hand, the necessity to reduce meat consumption, especially in Israel, one of the world leaders in meat consumption per person, was expressed as an urgent and robust solution that must be adapted for the population's health and the globe. This solution was based on the epidemiological, public health, and environmental sciences. Another divergence reflected the tension between the agricultural and environmental issues. Israel is a small and very populated country with scarce natural resources, especially land. The struggle to grow the major healthy and sustainble food basket and at the same time to reserve natural land creates conflict of interest that must be addressed.

2021-03-10 14:59:02204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/3390/203

13003376172261690752022352200214351403140000719283733052400120

The event was organized with a specific focus on multi-stakeholder participation and with panels added to the group dialogues properly designed to enable young food entrepreneurs to voice their views and experiences in person, rather than having others speak on their behalf. A dedicated effort to identify and give visibility to relevant existing initiatives was also made.See above.n/a

Yes

234238241242245251The main focus of the dialogue was how to empower many more young food entrepreneurs to access finance, as well as the complementary services and skills required to use finance to develop new business models that can transform food systems, particularly at the SME level. The theme is relevant across the FSS ATs, though the event was particularly connected to the At4 process.235238241242245251Participants discussed potential game-changers in six areas of action related to mobilizing finance for young food entrepreneurs. These included coordination among different actors in the financial ecosystem, approaches to de- risking financing, how to strengthen the entrepreneurial capabilities of young women and men in the food economy, how to mobilizing more finance for small agri-tech companies,how to improve information flows for young entre- preneurs, and how to harmonize bankability metrics among lenders to agri-SMEs. The dialogue reinforced the critical roles played by agri-SMEs and, in particular, by young women and men as food entrepreneurs, all across food value chains and in food and agri-related services and innovation. It underlined the importance of bridging the financing gap for these small and medium-scale entrepreneurs and the fact that this requires working both on the "demand side" of finance - particularly through effective platforms and initiatives to support access to information and skills development (including financial skills development) for young (aspiring) entrepreneurs, and on the "supply side", through better use of de-risking capital, shared metrics to assess investibility of new or existing enterprises, and better coordination among lenders and investors.236238241242245251Discussion topic 1: Building young people’s capabilities as innovators in food and agriculture Key game-changer proposals: a) A “One-Stop-Shop” bringing together Agri-SMEs, investors, and diverse business development service providers, with global reach but anchored into in-country activities, offering a menu of services including: • Peer-to-peer SME learning and networking • Partnerships among BDS and other supporting organizations to connect their respective initiatives and avoid silos • Curating a database of entrepreneurs and sharing the same approach to mapping their functions and supporting needs (building on ISF/SAFIN taxonomy • Facilitating dialogue with investors • Building financial literacy and skills • Training • Guidelines and toolkits • Mentorship and coaching. b) A community ecosystem accelerator including that would be accessible to women and youth with capacity to develop start-up business solutions to needs at the community level, enhancing local self-sufficiency and self-reliance from a food system perspective. This would address a number of key needs including: • Training programs for women on basic financial education • Access to finance to start business. • Bringing markets to SMEs, develop the mechanism to bring produce to markets. • Solving challenges of post-harvest value chain • Supporting youth innovation Measuring success: a) Annual Tracker of progress on the various activity lines of the Platform, compiled into an annual publication (similar to the African Investment Outlook Report) Such a Tracker would allow demonstration of impact e.g., development of human capacity, number of employees, turnover, demonstrate the changes and growth of individual entrepreneurs, development in sectors of activity etc.Efficiency of training may also be measured by evaluating knowledge before and after (several organisations already do this). b) Measurement of impact would focus on the community level, but much impact is expected to be of intangible value. Tangible metrics would include: number of work working with start-ups that have built programs directed to them; analysing the social improvement of the life of women once they improve their livelihoods and education (e.g. changes in domestic violence for instance, psycho-social impact, social cohesion); number of women’s groups created; impact on child nutrition; jobs created; access to markets. Who can contribute/realize these game changers: a) There are many stakeholders across different sectors – universities, training and support organisations, NGOs, youth associations, international organisations, governments (inter-ministries), banks, and other financial institutions – who can contribute to the proposed one-stop platform. A mapping of this ecosystem is needed to clearly understand who can be engaged. The key is to build on what is already in place by connecting across initiatives and actors rather than starting anew for this platform. b) Acceleratorsmust be in a cohort; they have to be geographically located or around enough critical mass to make a difference.Aggregation is key to help women to position themselves in a more empowered position and the cohort aspect helps to bring a better understanding of what a group needs. As for who we should seek to involve in an ecosystem accelerator, that includes first of all community leaders and then also relevant development partners and networks (including Slow Food, IFAD, etc.)236238241242245251Discussion topic 2: Information systems empowering agripreneurs to navigate the financial sector Key game-changer proposals: a) The most effective information systems are those that are close to users – whether closeness means accessibility of information services via digital tools (e.g. phones) or via radio or small-group training organized directly with young (prospective) entrepreneurs in the field. For either approach to be really game changing though we need a lot of curation of information content, as this needs to be really relevant to young people’s practical needs, accessible (not too abstract or “fancy”), and focused on concrete experiences and lessons learned. This may be packaged into a multi-lingual app with localised content related to specific markets, commodities, and financial systems, or it may be delivered through local information points e.g. in mini business centers located in postal offices. b) Asecond proposal is a platform that would facilitate global investment matchmaking for agripreneurs, providing an easily accessible and comprehensive information package to agripreneurs including reliable and timely financial data and resources, tools to build their investment readiness, and information about potential investors. This platform would be a one-stop-shop to help businesses ‘from start to scale’ find tailored funding and financing support. The platform would be integrated with existing stakeholder initiatives across different countries to achieve impact at scale. Measuring success: a) Level of uptake of information/use of the system (app?), but also success stories of information shaping entrepreneurs’ decisions and number of young people that managed to get funding. b) Relevant metrics would be: • Successful transactions and deals closed on the platform • Matches made between investors and agriSMEs • Number of agribusinesses registered and able to access resources on the platform • New jobs created by the SMEs • Sales and revenue growth recorded by the SMEs. Who can make this happen, and what can each of us contribute? a) Policymakers have major roles to play, but also development agencies and financial institutions. b) Ecosystem groups and associations, entrepreneur networks, and youth bodies who must be involved in the development, growth, and broad dissemination of the platform to agriSMEs and other value chain actors. This will also ensure that the end users are involved in all stages of the platform growth. Other key actors are investors and SMEs. Nourishing Africa volunteered to take the lead in further conceptualizing this given that the Nourishing Africa platform already focuses on agribusinesses, albeit with an Africa-only focus.236238241242245251Discussion topic 3: Financial de-risking of investment capital for young agripreneurs Key game-changer proposals: a) There is need for much greater focus on de-risking by reducing transaction costs associated with financing small scale enterprises and young entrepreneurs, strengthening due diligence to increase the chances of successful investments, educating investors, and improving value chain functioning and risk-sharing across value chain actors - rather than only on financial de-risking of specific transactions. b) Game-changing solutions require a combination of better financial tools and products meeting the needs of young food entrepreneurs, incentive mechanisms for FSPs and investors, and common metrics and standards to reduce transaction costs and improve transparency and competitiveness in the financial ecosystem. Measuring success: • Farmer continuity and improvements: Measure the number of farmers that are able to continue operating, including those that are able to grow their operations. • Supply and demand for education: Compare a measurement of the amount and nature of information (i.e. training, knowledge sharing, etc.) that is being offered to FSPs and Producers, as compared to that of the demand for information. • Fund disbursement time: Track the variations in the time required for funds to be disbursed, especially to younger entrepreneurs, starting from the moment an application is made. Who can make this happen, and what can each one of us contribute? Large corporates can use their convening power to mobilize and align value chain actors, and participate in the development and circulation of knowledge around agriculture production and financing practices. TA providers can develop the knowledge base required to better inform FSPs and producers.Public sector actors at the local level can have a mandate and capacity to engage in de-risking activities (education and partnerships), particularly those that promote young entrepreneurs in the agriculture sector, given its importance for job creation and GDP. International public actors (e.g. World Bank and EU) can contribute through funding, influence over policies and knowledge sharing across regions.236238241242245251Discussion topics 4: Enhancing coordination among different types of capital and financial service providers Key game changer proposals: a) Increased coordination by regional bodies to develop road maps on priority sectors for development in the agriculture space that can guide entrepreneurs and investors. “One” voice/body would give the different stakeholders confidence but should also be resourced appropriately to support acceleration of investment activity and ultimately crowd in investors from across the capital structure (i.e., business development teams to work with entrepreneurs, structuring of incentives/grants, etc.). b) Increased participation from strategic investors (broadening the investor landscape). Increased focus beyond the “usual” financiers i.e., commercial banks, impact investors, private equity, DFI’s. This would allow enterprises to benefit from more operational support (if the value proposition for both parties is clear). With the changing investor lens (increasing focus on impact and sustainability), enterprises can be a core part of the strategic players for value chain transformation. c) Reviewing the economics of funding vehicles(esp. private equity) to enhance their ability to provide operational support to enterprises versus solely a focus on financial competencies/returns. Entrepreneurs are asking:Are the vehicles being set up to support their businesses they invest in? Is there mentorship? Is this an equal partnership? In addition, development of investment vehicles that take a platform approach i.e., consolidate various businesses that feed into their eco-system e.g., feed-mill business, poultry business, retailer/off-taker which minimizes risk across each of the value chains but also increases collaboration/learnings between different parties. How would we measure success around such initiatives? • Vocal and effective regional bodies with actual participation from the private sector, able to signal to investors clear priorities and how they will be supported. • Investment vehicles effectively structured to enhance financial and operational performance over longer term investment horizons. • Increased participation from strategic investors and recognition that target enterprises can feed into their supply chains and enhance their financial, social and environmental impact. Who can make this happen, and what can each one of us contribute? There is need for actors involved in these types of strategic investment focusing and facilitation initiatives to share experiences across geographies and facilitate also dialogue and mentorship among entrepreneurs when possible.236238241242245251Discussion topic 5: Enhancing investor coordination through shared bankability metrics Key game-changer proposals: a) The main proposal was to develop common standards and metrics for assessing SMEs. These would be used to better target Technical Assistance to SMEs and provide a shared understanding of needs and risks. It would also allow better tracking of progress achieved and alignment between TA and capital providers. The standardized metrics should include climate change and adaptation assessment areas to inform green investments and allow quantification of benefits (some of which could be monetized).Overall, the metrics should be adapted to different value chains and sectors and the use of the metrics by stakeholders across the ecosystem. b) A second proposal was to develop a platform of capital providers that could create a pool of capital that allows for shared risk facility and provide a continuum for investments. c) A third proposal was to use large scale organizations like chambers of commerce to Build a database of agri-SMEs members to improve their access to finance and partnerships. d) A fourth proposal was to build a sort of "LinkedIn" for agriculture - a network for entrepreneurs and investors operating/interested in the agricultural/food sector. e) A fifth and final proposal was to better track and coordinate development finance at the source given that it is difficult to track the large number of operators. In short, donors could publicly disclose the projects they fund and create a comprehensive database/visual geo-localization of all projects. They should also request new entities asking for their support to develop synergies with at least 2 ongoing initiatives form this map. Blockchaincould be used to trace the resources at the level of end-beneficiaries to foster synergies and avoid duplication. Measuring success: a) For bankability metrics, success would be measured by adoption rate, reduced transaction cost and due diligence cost, and adaptation/improvement on the FAO EXACT impact tool related to climate and enterprise investments. b) For the platform of partners, success would be measured by improved transparency and synergies created around investments and by increased investment of different types of finance matching the various SME needs. c) For the fifth proposal on donor coordination, success would be measured by improved transparency around donor interventions and number of synergies among donor-funded projects. Who can make this happen, and what can each one of us contribute? All participants in the group stated their interest, and also noted the need for broad-based support from the FSP and agri-SME communities and from key donors to agriculture, potentially led by IFAD given its credibility in the space and its experience in leading financial coordination efforts in the agricultural finance ecosystem (global and at country level).236238241242245251Discussion topic 6: Financialservices and products for ag-tech innovators Key game-changer proposals a) The challenge to be addressed lies primarily in developing new fin-tech solutions that are suited to local needs and contexts (e.g. in different market conditions or degree of coverage of IT infrastructure). Game-changing solutions to this challenge need to rest on multi-stakeholder collaboration is critical and capacity to convene different stakeholders in the areas of technology, policy, finance, agriculture, and more. A specific game-changer may be a convening space for public and private actors to discuss their respective roles in supporting young food entrepreneurs in fintech innovation, to be organized around the FSS. b) Scoring models that can guide the development of financial models for agri-SMEs and technology solutions providers. c) A global competition allowing small entrepreneurs to access large pools of capital based on random selection, to be used for innovation piloting. d) Local investor networks pooling resources to tap and finance local tech innovations e) A global townhall initiative for agtech innovations to showcase innovations and share experiences/support each other. f) A global blended facility or country-level blended facilities pooling capital for start-up ag-tech entrepreneurs to pilot their innovations. Measuring success: a) Success for a convening alongside the FSS would be measured by the range of actors involved, including FSPs and technology companies, farmer organizations, governments, inter-ministerial agencies, and private investors, as well as youth groups.Success would also be measured by the depth of knowledge and experience sharing across different regions. b to f) For the other game-changers, success would be measured by access of small entrepreneurs to new investor networks and improved product offering among FSPs. Who can make this happen, and what can each one of us contribute? a) AGRA and Nourishing Africa agreed to take this forward. b) For the other game changers, there is need for broad-based engagement of governments, local agtech entrepreneurs, and IOT stakeholders as well as commercial investors.237238241242The dialogue did not bring out areas of divergence per se but it did underline the challenges of connecting different actors and initiatives in the financial ecosystem around agri-SMEs and around young entrepreneurs in particular, including difficulties in aligning around shared approaches, standards, and metrics in assessing investment risks, limited availability or ineffective use of derisking capital in this space, and fragmentation of initiatives and of information systems and platforms.

2021-03-11 03:34:36205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/7273/39

83101131241433

This was a preliminary meeting, designed to lay out the main areas of interest and to identify different stakeholders . The group was kept deliberately small to serve as a planning event in a sequence of dialogues planned for April and May 2021. Given the need to act quickly and to operate under increasingly restrictive measure to combat COVID-19, the meeting was held online with a small group each selected to represent diverse interests. In response to the request for discussion by IFC, CARD was able to quickly mobilise support from different elements of the SUN Movement already active in the area of food fortification and knowledgeable of other parties and their possible interests. The imperative to act and the inability to conduct large meetings mean that we need to move quickly into the in-depth discussions for Stage 2 and to mobilise interest and commitment to the dialogue around key topics.Knowing that we need to work as quickly as possible to fulfil the requirements for a national dialogue and widest possible representation and inclusion, the imperative now is to initiate multiple dialogue events across a wide variety of topics. Each small event is designed as an effort to recruit interest from multiple stakeholders and to engage a wide cross section of interests. The discussions on food fortification were respectful of the long history of involvement of the Ministry of Planning and agencies such as WFP, UNICEF and HKI in food fortification efforts in Cambodia. The small panel involved was a reflection of the diversity of stakeholders and the dialogue was designed to identify other stakeholders to join in follow-up dialogue.Keeping working to ensure women are adequately represented in dialogue events

NoThis event was conducted in line with more conventional online meetings. There was clear chairmanship under the Convenor and opportunities for the organisers to declare their interests before all participants were given opportunity to provide input. The organisers presented a summary of ideas and action points to enable an ongoing process of dialogue when it is envisaged that the methods recommended in the Manual will be followed.

234238239245246The focus of this discussion was on access to safe and nutritious food for all and the shift to sustainable consumption patters. The discussion considered how food fortification can serve both as a cheap and effective measure for providing access to nutritious diet and as an attractive product in the eyes of health conscious consumers. The discussion recognised that the use of food fortification as a means of providing a social safety net may stygmatise fortified foods in the market place, and that there were some key challenges for expanding on food fortification in Cambodia especially in relation to rice as the staple food with a very large number of short localised supply chains and local processing. The meeting considered some of these challenges, the need for a supportive regulatory environment, and technical issues for food processors. Successful strategies for food fortification in Cambodia and other countries was also discussed.235238239245248249Rice will be the main commodity for food fortification efforts by the institutions concerned in Cambodia but the efforts to promote food fortification will go beyond rice to look at rice-based products and other types of products as well. The points raised in this dialogue will be the basis for discussion in the following dialogues on this topic and for actions to be taken in the after the workshop. This will include gathering existing information on which micro-nutrients should be included in food fortification or promoting research into this topic. Examining evidence from Cambodia and other countries to determine the factors contributing to success for market based approaches to food fortification. These topics will ensure there is a clear plan for dialogue in any workshops to follow. The characteristics of the rice supply chains in Cambodia including multiple, small-scale processors, mobile millers and local chains make it very difficult to introduce fortification, to regulate the activities or to make fortification in any way compulsory. A market approached based on an aspirational product contributing to good health appears the most likely approach to success for commercial fortification of rice, outside of the provision of fortified rice as part of social assistance measures. It is very useful to listen to successful entrepreneurs like the Director of Ly Ly foods who have experience in micro-nutrient fortification and the sale of healthy alternative snack foods. There are other examples, including an instant noodle manufacturer (exported product) keen to explore nutrient fortification of noodles for the local and export .market. WFP will help to progress dialogues for food fortification working closely with the National Sub Committee for Food Fortification (NSCFF). Two separate dialogue topics are planned to cover both the creation of an enabling environment for small to medium scale processors and secondly for exploration of the operational issues for the processors. A further event is planned and will be led by IFC in the first week of April with additional interest from international private sector representatives to join the dialogue.2362382392452462482491. Plans in place for follow-up dialogues 2. WFP and NSCFF to coordinate efforts for future dialogue events with IFC and Cambodian Rice Federation with support from HE Silo of CARD as convenor of National Dialogues 3. Private sector involvement in dialogues (both national and international) will be widely encouraged 4.Focus on good health and nutrition as the benefit of fortification under a market based-approach237238239243One area of divergence emerging in this discussion related to the possible view of consumers in Cambodia that fortified foods are associated with poverty. This is related to the country experience with malnutrition and poverty in the past. This may present challenges in marketing fortified foods in the country as it rises in income status and moves away from Least Developed Country status. The solution to this appears to be in promoting healthy lifestyles including healthy foods and fitness where fortified foods can be more appealing to consumers. Independent evidence will be important in establishing the basis for any health claims for fortified foods.

2021-03-11 10:23:50204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/3940/91

4886315133111111274113162

Act with Urgency World Vision Ireland partnered with the Chefs’ Manifesto to organise the first Independent Dialogue in Ireland. World Vision’s strategy is directly working to support the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals in 6 crucial areas: mother and child health, economic empowerment, water, education, child protection, and food and agriculture. Participating in the UN Food Systems Summit, by organising an Independent Dialogue, not only offered the opportunity to participate in an UN event focusing on food/agriculture, but also to contribute to it by bringing stakeholders form diverse backgrounds in Ireland together and focus on Ireland’s role in sustainable food systems. By organising the first Independent Dialogue in Ireland, World Vision expressed the urgency in which action needs to be taken here as well as globally. Commit to the summit The Independent Dialogue was organised following the guidelines set out by the Food Systems Summit. Members of the organising team participated in training sessions and used the handbooks as a close guide. Recognize Complexity This Independent Dialogue recognised the complexity of the topic and focused on the role of Ireland in sustainable food system. By narrowing the topic, it has been acknowledged that the topic is too broad to simply cover in one evening. Embrace Multi-Stakeholder Inclusivity To embrace and encourage multi-stakeholder inclusivity, the event was promoted on diverse social media platforms. In addition, a diverse panel was invited to frame the discussion and by also promoting the event on their channels, a wider and more diverse audience was reached. The background of individuals was identified within the registration process and this information allowed to create more diverse discussionWorld Vision Ireland recognized the need for urgent action and organised the first Independent Dialogue in Ireland. Partnering with the Chefs’ Manifesto and inviting additional speakers to the panel discussion allowed to reach a wider and more diverse audience. By bringing stakeholders from diverse backgrounds together, the complexity of the issues pertaining to food sustainability and the diverse perspectives and priorities were recognized, accepted and valued. The discussions proved to benefit from the multi-stakeholder inputs.The Principles of Engagement offer a blueprint for the successful run of an Independent Dialogue.

Yes

234238239244246247248249250251The Independent Dialogue “Good Food for All” focused on Ireland’s role in sustainable food systems. To do this the dialogue session looked at how to increase the availability of nutritious food, making food more affordable and reducing inequities in access to food; how to eliminate wasteful patterns of food consumption; and how diets can transition towards more nutritious foods that require fewer resources to produce and transport. Action Track 1 and Action Track 2 were the basis of this Independent Dialogue. Action Track 1 works to end hunger and all forms of malnutrition and reduce the incidence of non-communicable disease, enabling all people to be nourished and healthy. This goal requires that all people always have access to sufficient affordable and safe food products. Achieving this goal means increasing the availability of nutritious food, making food more affordable and reducing inequities in access to food. Action Track 2 works to build consumer demand for sustainably produced food, strengthen local value chains, improve nutrition, and promote the reuse and recycling of food resources, especially among the most vulnerable. This Action Track recognizes that we need to eliminate wasteful patterns of food consumption; it also recognizes that we need to facilitate a transition in diets towards more nutritious foods that require fewer resources to produce and transport. “Good Food for All” examined what individuals can do to ensure more sustainable food systems. It addressed the need for the young generation to be involved in shaping the future food systems and addressed the link between climate justice and global sustainable food systems. The following topics were discussed in groups: Topic 1: A world where no one goes hungry: everyone has access to nutritious and affordable food. Topic 2: Children and youth are actively involved in shaping our food systems Topic 3: People make informed choices based on reliable information about how and where food is produced. Topic 4: Climate Justice is at the heart of the global response to more sustainable food systems.235238239244246247248249250251The Dialogue showed that a social justice approach is needed when talking about food systems. Access to education, information and participation, as well as basic human rights, such as the right to a healthy environment and the right to be involved in important discussions, were addressed as key elements in the transformation of food systems. Engagement in education on all levels has been identified as one of the main findings of the Dialogue. Education on food systems needs to be introduced much earlier in school curricula and it needs to continue far into adulthood, with a greater understanding of the true cost of food. Education about food systems needs to go beyond formal education and should reach into implementation. The Dialogue has also shown a desire of the public to be involved in the process of transformation and decision making. The voice of the consumer needs to be taken more seriously on both the industry and policy level. The diverse perspectives of all involved need to be taken into consideration when approaching the complexity of sustainable food systems. A need for cross-departmental cooperation has also been identified as important in creating holistic and meaningful policies.236238244246247249250Topic 1: A world where no one goes hungry: everyone has access to nutritious and affordable food. The right to food should be engrained in all policies. All governments (department of agriculture, trade, health, urban development, rural affairs, etc.) should ensure policy coherence, synergy and compatibility, and have common aims when it comes to food. Participation of those who are further down the food chain, such as farmers and consumers, must be ensured in decision making processes, and the general public needs to be included in this discourse. Education, therefore, is vital for a holistic view of food systems and understanding the true cost of food. Climate action and change require us as individuals in Ireland to change our food choices and habits as it is developing countries who are feeling the worst impact. But also, at policy level, we need to have courageous conversations about some of our approaches which are centered on production and expansion.236239247248249251Topic 2: Children and youth are actively involved in shaping our food systems The concept of Food Systems needs to be made more accessible to young people and integrated at a sooner stage into the school curricula. Young people need to understand the complexities and trade-offs involved in shaping food systems. By making the language more accessible to young people, they can be included in this dialogue. They should be actively involved in discussions and decisions around shaping future sustainable food systems. More dialogues and forums for discussion are needed in general, with systems and processes put in place to ensure the voice of young people is heard at these. Consideration must also be taken of how young people tend to communicate, with a focus on digital communications. Young people should be encouraged to develop innovative approaches to shaping future food systems. Collaborative approaches such as social entrepreneurship initiatives have the potential to create a high level of engagement.236238239244249250251Topic 3: People make informed choices based on reliable information about how and where food is produced. One problem with today’s food systems is that choice is not universal. In order to move food systems forward, good and nutritious food needs to be available to all. Choice affects the quality of food. Tackling food poverty is a priority in achieving sustainable food systems. The trade-offs between production and export need to be re-examined, as Irish agriculture is focused on dairy and meat exports, very little land is used for crops (human consumption) and most grain (60%) is grown to feed animals. Education on nutritious and native food needs to start at a young age and beyond. Accurate information needs to penetrate. Reliable information - Farm to fork at EU level - giving more information to consumers through labelling. Countries need to work towards an EU standard.236239244245246247249250251Topic 4: Climate Justice is at the heart of the global response to more sustainable food systems. Having different conversations with different views will work towards a more involved solution. Important to get a systems perspective in a multi-lateral dialogue, that is non-polar, but takes different niches into consideration. The SDGs with their indicators offer a blueprint to move forward and to measure what has already been achieved. Access to land right has also been identified as an issue that needs to be challenged in order to achieve more sustainable food systems.237238239244245246247248249250251The need for simplifying the language around food systems has been highlighted. However, at the same time it has been emphasized that there is a danger in not recognizing the complexity of the issue. The challenge remains in simplifying the language without simplifying the issue. The true cost of food has to be recognized and rewarded, while making food available and affordable to all.

2021-03-11 19:36:12204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/1256/203

10001056295475351311123313110640203500002122711340212316278

To ensure respect of the Principles of Engagement, the following measures were taken: - Several members of the two co-hosting organisations took part in the FSSD training sessions, and conveyed the message to the rest of the organising teams; - Facilitators and notetakers were all encouraged to attend the trainings, and the importance of th Principles was further reemphasized in the dry-run sessions held before the event; - The participants were made aware of the principles during the plenary session, and were encouraged to get further familiar by referring to the link in the Dialogue’s chat box. - The principles were highlighted in the interventions of the keynote speakers and incorporated into the discussion topics of the breakout groups.Acting with urgency o the Curator’s introduction stressed the importance of an urgent action, highlighted by the keynote opening by two UN representatives Committing to the Summit o participants were invited to keep thinking, to stay in touch, to recap the actions and honour commitments, to disseminate the outcomes, to organise follow up dialogues, and to keep working towards (and beyond) the Summit Being respectful o participants were encouraged to make the best of the safe environment, to kindly listen and respectfully challenge each other, to understand & appreciate the differences, always with a constructive dialogue etiquette in mind Recognising complexity o our dialogue connected the often fragmented nutritional and environmental conversations, while recognising the fact that the very definition(s) of the food systems carry the weight of numerous angles Embracing multi-stakeholder inclusivity o while a Brussels-focused event at its core, the dialogue gathered a spectrum of actors across sectors, covering Europe at large, including:  science: nutrition, food science & technology, environment, behaviour, agriculture, climate, food systems;  food value chain: food production, processing, packaging, retail, HoReCa;  civil society: patients, educators, practitioners, consumers, communicators youth;  policy: European Commission, Parliamentarians, International Agencies Complementing the work of others o The Dialogue followed on the landmark documents, including Farm2Fork strategy of the EC, the Guiding Principles for Sustainable Healthy Diets of the FAO & WHO, the SOFI 2020. o The topics specifically built on the CFS Voluntary Guidelines on Food Systems & Nutrition and on FSS Action track 2 Building trust o the core element of the dialogue, as eviden

Yes

234238239240243244246248249250The Dialogue “Walking the talk: healthy and sustainable food systems through aligned communication and policy” acknowledged the complexity of challenges on our way to healthy and sustainable food systems, with their numerous distinct causes that need to be tackled differently, triggering actions that may result in trade-offs, or even in creation of new issues. Starting from a premise that a shift towards sustainable food systems can only be achieved by enabling and empowering citizens to make healthier and more sustainable food and lifestyle choices, the dialogue was set to bring EU stakeholders around the table, to ensure a paradigm shift and break the silos in addressing the urgent need to combat all forms of malnutrition and environmental degradation. The focus of the dialogue was to find solutions for empowering citizens to adopt healthier and more sustainable behaviours - by increasing trust in science and the use thereof, and by securing aligned, evidence-based communication & policy. With that backdrop, this dialogue has directly contributed to the work of the Action Track 2: Shift to sustainable consumption patterns, but also to the work of Action Tracks 1 and 3. The format, details of the programme, and key messages of the keynote speakers are offered in the Annex to this Report.235238239240243244246248249250The following FIVE OVERARCHING CONCLUSIONS could be identified: The complexity of the food systems must be acknowledged: o by taking a stepwise, cross-sectoral approach, to:  avoid resistance that a “big bang” approach could trigger;  allow working in a complementary fashion  facilitate (re)building trust in the food systems; o by aligning on a definition of sustainability, as:  we must be clear on where we are heading, if we are to develop successful solutions;  the existing divisions could lead to further confusion & loss of trust among food systems actors. Citizens are recognised as central to the success of food systems transformation. To secure their buy in into healthy sustainable behaviour: o tailored education & communication must be ensured; o optimal food environment should be secured, making healthy & sustainable food choices easy also for underprivileged; o citizens should be involved in the co-design of research and policy. Education is key in achieving mindset transformation. It should be: o relying on solid science, with health at its centre; o interdisciplinary and holistic in its nature, recognising complexity of the food systems; o ensuring a knowledge build-up across educational levels; o tailored to different target groups:  to general public, on healthy and sustainable food choices;  to farmers & food producers, on efficient management of natural resources/production systems;  to businesses, on their impacts and dependencies on natural capital; o blended with policy & food environment. Policy frameworks are critical for ensuring sustainable food systems. To secure success, their features should include: o strength, ambition, transparency, science at their core; o robustness against vested interests; o comprehensiveness, convergence and coherence:  across agri, trade, health, environment, education, aid, development, and other frameworks  at different levels, from municipal to global; o the One Health approach, critical for both people’s and planet’s health Trust is paramount to ensure success of most of the recommendations proposed. This Dialogue resulted in both INDIVIDUAL JOINT COMMITMENTS, across different fields. The participants have committed to: In the field of research, education & communication o Conduct research to understand consumer behaviour, taking into account the relation between food, culture and identity; o Shape programmes within their specific roles, e.g. the curricula of MSc programmes and research editorials; o Support national consumer organisations in educating citizens; o Carry out awareness campaigns on food storage and the use of date-labelling; o Raise awareness among policy makers and health professionals; o Educate businesses  to understand their impacts and dependencies on natural capital, to better manage risks and dependencies, to take better informed decisions.  to help them take specific food waste actions and teach their employees about food waste; In the field of best practice sharing & capacity building: o Learn from successful initiatives in food sourcing, processing and reformulation; o Bring cities together  to learn from each other’s successes & failures,  to improve capacity building & good practice sharing. o Bring policymakers together to  learn from each other  harmonize policies  reduce frictions; o Expand the dialog to non-usual actors. In the field of policy: o Tackle inequality through the Childhood Obesity Taskforce in London o Influence legislation on food waste, e.g. by addressing taxation to make food donation easier; o Push for adoption of ambitious & stringent policy tools in support of initiatives like the Nutri-Score or introduction of reformulation targets; o Support adopting national science-based policy recommendations; o Advocate for food system policies & policy convergence; o Bridge data gaps in to provide basis for smart & effective food systems policies. In the fields of food safety, food packaging, food waste: o Collect more data on food waste; o Improve packaging and commit to circular economy o Make surplus food available and donation easier through digital platforms & tools; o Continue to act on solutions easy to implement and proven to work (e.g. doggy-bags). Across environmental, social and ethical dimensions: o Develop tools to measure environmental impact that are easy to understand, and that include externalities into food prices o Support projects that build consumer trust, re-connect people with food and with innovations in the food system; o Work with local actors on social dimension to buying food, at first in local markets; o Commit to sustainable sourcing (of ingredients), processing & reformulation, to the farm to fork code of conducts within industrial agreemen236238239240243244246248249250PRODUCTION, CONSUMPTION AND IN BETWEEN: THE INCREASING DEMAND FOR HEALTHY AND SUSTAINABLE FOODS WILL SECURE THE INCREASINGLY SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTION. How to exploit the demand? Can we transition from short(er) chains to tight(er) interactions? The state of affairs: • With the topic being debated among scientists, and the overwhelming and often contradicting information in the digital sphere, it is of no surprise that citizens can hardly grasp the concept of healthy and sustainable foods. Even if well understood, healthy and sustainable choices are not necessarily the easiest ones. • Equally unsurprisingly, citizens have little trust in novel production methods, even when they are sustainable and safe. • People’s decision-making around foof does not happen in a vacuum, it is influenced and shaped by the social and cultural norms and policy environment. The below calls for actions were made, aimed at: o helping people navigate the food environment, o rebuilding trust in the food systems, o increasing demand for sustainably produced food products. To governments / policy makers: o to create enabling environments for sustainable production; o to regulate other aspects of the food system, incl. the labelling and marketing of food products; o to harmonise food labelling at international level; o to ensure policy coherence: producers should be able to rely on a solid and coherent framework, resilient to e.g. loose trade rules that challenge the level playing field; o to allow adequate time to adjust to new rules, as well as support access to modern technologies; o to secure that the rules of public food procurements follow the rules of both healthy and sustainable nutrition. To food producers (acknowledging that proposed actions are not equally accessible nor meaningful to producers in the Global North and South): o to react to the consumers’ and public health demand for more sustainable and healthy food; o to responsibly consider marketing and labelling as elements that influence consumer choices; o to work together with policy makers to create stimulating food environment, which will make healthy and sustainable choices easy choices; o wherever possible, to use sensible production methods and to (keep) implementing innovative technologies that allow more sustainable production.236239243244246248249250EDUCATION AND KNOWLEDGE - FROM SCIENCE, OVER CULTURAL AND SOCIAL NORMS, TO PRACTICAL KNOWLEDGE - WILL UNDERPIN HEALTHY SUSTAINABLE LIFESTYLES. (incl. healthy diets, physical activity, food waste prevention, intra-household food distribution, food safety, optimal breastfeeding & complementary feeding). How will connecting the knowledge dots get us there? The state of affairs: • With malnutrition in all its forms now recognised as the key factor behind global public health challenges, people are becoming increasingly aware of the importance of nutrition for their health, but also of the impact that our food production, consumption and disposal make on the health of the planet. • Any change in nutrition habits and pattern is difficult, but it can start from education, and get supported by social, cultural, economic, policy and other aspects of the environment. This all, acknowledging that there is a need for more evidence on sustainable diets. • Knowledge about food systems must come from many different fields to enable us to resolve the issues. In order to act across different sectors of the society, we need to start acting early, learning how to collaborate, and how to think out of the box. • Education is a field of huge possibility and flexibility, crucial for the food systems transformation, but in order to demonstrate its full potential it must be made more resilient, fit for both challenges and opportunities of the 21st century. To make a difference, the following actions were suggested: • Switch to sustainable education systems, which includes moving away from subject-oriented learning to inquiry-based learning (problem- & project-oriented studying), to interdisciplinary, interactive, blended learning. • Focus on interdisciplinary education across educational levels, including that on healthy sustainable lifestyles at primary & secondary schools, and on food systems at secondary schools and higher level education. • Ensure holistic, aligned communication on sustainable food systems, by: o educating the public about the versatile aspects of the food systems, o breaking the communication silos, o avoiding generalisation and tailoring the messages and formats to specific audiences, o framing healthy sustainable diets around culture, social norms, and values, o integrating practical aspects that people can relate to and directly benefit from (e.g. cooking classes, weekly menu planning, sustainable grocery lists, food waste reducing practices). • Hold multi-stakeholder dialogues to facilitate the exchange between science, policy and “real-life”, by: o carefully putting the science at the heart; o translating, but not banalizing, scientific messages into policy and broader communication; o addressing systemic barriers to translation and implementation of science. • Use the momentum, employ innovation & creativity, reconnect people with their food! o let the kids know how we grow food, what happens in the field, what is healthy, fresh, local, seasonal; what foods we import; how do we ensure versatile, balanced diets; organise school gardens and cooking classes; o encourage talking about food, promote bidirectional intergenerational learning; encourage people to cook for each other, to shop for food together, to share excess food within community, to jointly prevent food waste; organise communal gardens and cooking classes; o visually capture the sustainability concept– how is that for a food labelling challenge?236238239240243244246248249250SECURITY AMIDST ABUNDANCE: SPILLING OVER WILL SPILL OVER FROM AFFLUENT TO LESS FORTUNATE. What are the missing links in food security? How to ensure decent livelihoods for all? Context of the discussion: • Participants agreed on the high complexity of the topic. Root causes are many, and all need to be addressed in a (semi)coordinated way, recognising that different parts of the system need to be addressed differently, and that actions may result in trade-offs. • The discussion touched upon both local and global aspects, as well as the internal and external impact of EU policies and actions. • The One Health approach was assessed as critical, as food system transformation is about both people’s and planet’s health. Recommendations for action: • Reduce food waste: o Obtain sufficient data on where food is wasted along the supply chain, to develop tailored system solutions for reducing it at the source; o Develop approaches to collect and redistribute excess food in a fair way to vulnerable groups (“revalue” the waste); o Educate people on how to use and cook with fresh foods and reduce waste at home. • Empower farmers and food producers: o Invest in farmers and local food supply systems (e.g. in providing farming communities with the necessary infrastructure, such as good quality broadband in rural areas, or use public procurement to support farmers transitioning to more sustainable practices); o Educate farmers and food producers on efficient management of natural resources/production systems and on setting prices to improve their negotiating power in the food chain; o Consider the implementation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and others working in rural areas. • Utilise technology: o Maximise the use of available solutions and be on the forefront of implementation of new technologies (e.g use block chain technologies for ensuring food chain transparency and reducing waste). • Ensure coherent EU policies (internal and external): o Conduct a transparent review of agriculture-based EU policies that could undermine food security and healthy nutrition, and identify opportunities to encourage sustainable agriculture in the EU; o Ensure coherence between EU aid policies and national policies developed by the aid-receiving nation; o Consider sustainability in the context of trade agreements. • Create a better definition/vision of the sustainable food system that we aspire to achieve o knowing where we are going will help develop solutions for transforming the food system. • Foster dialogue and exchange, improve representation of the key food chain actors o Due to the complexity of the challenge, and to address the needs of different people and environments, we need to ensure all stakeholders are represented in defining solutions. Civil society groups and farmers are often left underrepresented. • Propose mandatory EU food labelling that quickly communicates to consumers accurate information on nutrition and sustainability indicators.236238239240243244246248249250FOOD WASTE: EDUCATING FOOD SYSTEM ACTORS WILL TURN WASTE REDUCING BEHAVIOUR INTO A SOCIAL NORM. How to leverage education, communication & policy to ensure this shift? The state of affairs: • Food waste and loss happen at all stages of the food value chain, from pre-harvest food loss, over the impact of packaging and transport, all the way to food waste in retail and in households. • To devise efficient interventions to reduce food waste at critical points in the cycle (which admittedly significantly differ between Global North & South), a data driven approach should be taken. • At the same time, a mindset shift is required from the one in which we must produce more food to feed the world, to the one in where we must produce foods that are more nutritious and more sustainable, waste much less, and shift towards a plant-rich diet. To make a difference, the following recommendations were proposed: - Ensure data driven approach: o conduct research into food waste and losses at different community levels to focus interventions on where the problem is most critical, and to tailor them to local specificities; o test the effectiveness of interventions, then promote and scale-up the most effective ones; o collect data for food aid necessity - at (inter)national, but also local and neighbourhood level - to understand where the excesses can spill over to where there is a need. - Adapt the regulation framework around food waste, to: o send the right incentives to all food chain actors, from farmers to consumers; o prioritize food donation for human consumption (over that for animal feed); o facilitate food donation through taxation (using e.g. tax breaks); o make the best use of expiration date; o adjust the price of food to the food systems reality (cheap food is expensive for public health, and easier to waste), while considering the needs of underprivileged. - Work on a local level o municipalities are the ones to deal with packaging and food waste disposal; o they can effectively promote local markets and protect smallholder farmers; o they can effectively exchange best practices and build on each other’s knowledge. - Make use of innovation & technology o develop the economic potential of food waste through innovation (e.g. restaurants making beer from old bread); o increase and facilitate access to refrigeration and freezing in developing countries; o spill over the knowledge and best practices.236238239240243244246248249ATTITUDES & ADVOCACY: CITIZENS AS CHANGE AGENTS WILL BUILD A BRIDGE TO SUSTAINABLE BEHAVIOUR AROUND FOOD. What will secure construction of solid, sustainable cultural bridges? The discussion context: Instead of the Bing Bang, the next big thing is a lot of small things that work in a complementary fashion and are focused on education; food availability, pricing and convenience; economic and financial levers and incentives; rebuilding trust in the food system; and policy. Actions in the following focus areas were identified as crucial: Education • Start early with food, nutrition, sustainability and food system education • Make it practical and consider cultural context; • Walk the talk: match the classroom ‘talk’ with food served in school canteens. • Be mindful of transition into adulthood, when teenagers develop their own agency and execute choice • Change the narratives on food choices to support the adoption, focus on practical and easy things to engage and empower. Availability, pricing and convenience • Impact the choices o Consumers’ choices are influenced by marketing, pricing and accessibility; both policy and industry practices must strive to influence them towards healthier and more sustainable; o Nudges should be used in creating healthier food choices o the economic means should be ensured to help consumers break through their choice patterns and make them more sustainable. • Encourage behaviour change o by making it feasible and practical • Use pricing is a driver of food choices o particularly for people from challenging socio-economic backgrounds: strike the balance right to interest them in healthier diets, without neglecting the economic hurdles they face. • Ride on the pandemic wave o Seize the momentum and build on the fact that during COVID-19 pandemic people started cooking again; encourage more of the same o others have reconnected to local food supply chains - make sure to keep them connected. Economic and financial levers and incentives • to consumers: make the VAT lower for fruits, vegetables, legumes, grains; • to farmers: o incentivize small-holder farmers to food system transformation by ensuring that they have a sufficient maneuvering space to take risk and change the way they operate (currently, they have a small profit margin (1-2%), so making changes requires taking relatively large risks compared to other food system players); • EU CAP: financial incentives should be available to drive radical change, e.g. to mitigate risks for stakeholders and enable risk interventions; there is plenty of money available, but not distributed such to support production focused on sustainability and healthfulness; • Spark interest in alternative proteins, incl. legumes, as they can contribute to resilience and EU self-sufficiency; legumes grown in the EU are not price competitive and would lead to an ultimate loss for the farmer; in a fair food system, growing food should allow one to be self-sufficient and should not require subsidies. Rebuilding trust in food systems • Involve citizens in innovation processes from early on, to secure a buy-in and get ownership of the process; • Communicate better by informing consumers but also food handlers with clear guidelines (e.g. Nutri-Score) • Make use of professionals in the food systems, incl. nutritionists, to get information across clearly, and explain why differing opinions on certain points may exist. Policy • Support the development and adoption of strong, integrated and ambitious policies: urban food policy councils, or actions at regional and territorial236238239240243244246248249250FROM LOCAL TO GLOBAL IN SEVEN-LEAGUES POLICY BOOTS: THE EU FARM TO FORK POLICY FRAMEWORK WILL IMPACT BEYOND EUROPEAN BORDERS. Can we leverage the F2F strategy globally? How to ensure the impact? The discussion context: - The leading role of the EU was recognized and Farm to Fork (F2F) considered a great initiative. While there is a need to embrace it globally, it first has to be consolidated at EU level. It was suggested to establish a European Food Policy Council and include stakeholders. - The sustainability of food systems is a global issue, facing diverse challenges, so the response must be global. The attention to the external dimension of the F2F is especially important, as Europe’s agricultural and food system impacts outside Europe. - An integrated approach should be embraced with third and developing countries, and align the trade, development policies and decisions in standard setting organizations. Developing countries need support to transition towards sustainable economies due to multiple negative impacts (COVID-19, climate change, non-communicable diseases, food insecurity), all the while requiring a change in diets and a reduction of food waste. To make a difference, the following recommendations were proposed: • Promoting research and innovation and coalition building o Food research and innovation are key for making informed decisions, but also for monitoring success. o The value of information sharing, communities of practice, coalition building on food systems transition was recognized. Dialogue is key to conciliate divergent views, but some actions should not be based on voluntary actions but need to be enforced. • Promoting increased transparency along the food chain: a shared responsibility o Food chain actors must support healthy and sustainable diets and transform their production and operation methods. This requires human and financial investments and therefore should also bring economic returns. o Increased fairness and equity along the chain is required to succeed in transitioning towards sustainable food systems. o A fair and transparent policy (open communication, fair prices, risk sharing) promoting more transparency along supply chains and better distribution of value is needed. o Capacity development is key, especially for farmers groups and MSMEs, providing support to operators in meeting required economic, social and environmental standards. • Providing incentives towards sustainable food systems o Investments & incentives by public and private sector are needed: encouraging responsible food supply and consumption with neutral or positive environmental impact (tax incentives, procurement), responsible businesses, labelling, and work on legislative measures. o Consumers need to be represented and have a stronger voice in the food system. They also must understand that the price of food is generally low, and does not include externalities. o The farmers, fishers and other operators in the food chain who have already undergone the transition to sustainable practices, be in local or global markets, should be rewarded as to encourage the transition for the others, and create additional opportunities for their businesses. • Reconciling local and global food systems - Tradeoffs between local and global food systems need to be reached. There is no single solution in complex and interdependent systems. - To move towards food systems approach, managing change, breaking silos, and leveraging resources and measuring impact will be critical.236238239240243244246248249250PLANT-BASED: FROM PLANT-RICH TO A RICH-PLANET, THE DEVIL IS IN THE GRAINS, FRUITS, VEGGIES AND NUTS. How to leverage communication & policy to ensure a shift to plant-rich diets as socially & culturally established? General overeview: - Changing people’s eating practices and patterns takes time, and transition to the plant-rich diet will require a gradual rather than radical shift, combined emphasis on health & sustainability, and acknowledged cultural differences. - To ensure impact, a holistic approach is necessary to gather insights from different angles (e.g. health, environment, agriculture, tourism, education) and to bring together different perspectives towards a common goal. - On the road to plant-rich, there are both explicit and implicit decisions and actions for all stakeholders. We need to focus on both these levels in a concerted way. To make a difference, the following actions were suggested: • Actions directed at consumers: o School food policies: it is important to ensure that fresh and healthy foods are affordable and accessible, replacing highly processed and meat-based products. o Education: consumers must be equipped with knowledge on how to prepare healthy plant-based foods. o Accessibility: plant-based diets need to be accessible for the lower income families, which might entail a different, targeted approach, counteracting negative influences, such as unhealthy marketing/food environments). o Nudging towards balanced diets: o plant-based protein should be progressively incorporated into the diet, instilling the notion of consuming less meat but of higher quality, and more plant-based products; o healthy/plant-based foods need to taste as good as options that are less healthy or less sustainably produced. • Actions directed at supply chain: o Engage private sector: to increase the uptake of plant-based foods by consumers, incentivise food brands to advertise healthy and sustainable products. o Measure the environmental impact: encourage manufacturers and retailers to measure the environmental impact of food they are selling. o Pay attention to the animal and livestock sectors. With debates ongoing in European countries about pricing and taxation, animal welfare schemes could ensure that animal products are of higher quality and lower environmental impact. o Reverse the production focus from of animal- to plant-based protein. o Logistical drivers should be considered in providing plant-based foods into different regions/countries. • Actions directed at the policy makers: o Use policy tools to encourage plant-rich diets o Public procurement: through campaigns promoting plant-rich diets o Labelling: use nutrition labelling to highlight the health benefits of plant-based products, and sustainability labelling such as carbon labels to highlight the environmental benefits. o Fiscal measures: level up the prices for plant-based products with meat products, for example for milk and milk alternatives. o Use healthy lifestyle interventions as a part of health system to encourage a shift to plant-based diets, as the main dietary contribution to healthy nutrition. o Food environment: the food offer should be regulated, starting with the cities where interest is high to change to healthier and more sustainable food offer.236238239240243244246248249250FOOD ENVIRONMENT: MAINSTREAMING HEALTH AND FOOD IN ALL POLICY WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE. How will policy make a difference to people’s food choices? What policy? The discussion context: Policies can make a difference in establishing food environments supportive of sustainable healthy diets, but they need to be well designed, holistic, combining mandatory and voluntary measures. Various critical points emerged, as summarised below: Mindset change is key for changing the food system, acknowledging its complexity. There is no simple solution: a well aligned set of solutions is required, allowing for diverse positions, opening up, and finding a common ground. Education and environment: education and food environment should be considered together and not as ‘false dichotomy’. Education is important to give people the skills to navigate the food environment, and food environment needs to make the healthy and sustainable choices the easy ones. One-health policy: putting health at the centre, underpinning all policies, and educating people on the link between sustainability and health is important. Holistic approach: the environment and people’s behaviour should be targeted simultaneously, through a mix of complementary mandatory and voluntary interventions, while considering socioeconomic and health aspects, and having in mind the ‘triple wins’ of sustainability - health, planet and economy. Lived experience: exploring how policies affect people’s lives, in the ‘lived experience’ of food environments, provides key information on why people behave the way they do. Pricing: - the environmental costs are insufficiently reflected in food prices; - food price should ensure that the producer gets a fair value; - poverty is not to be not overlooked, however, as higher prices might increase inequity, as people of a low socioeconomic status cannot necessarily afford choices better for health and planet. Demand vs. supply: to achieve change, comprehensive and integrated strategy is needed including the supply side. Expecting change through consumer demand, having consumer ‘pay the price’ is both difficult and unfair. Labelling: although a much-researched topic, combining nutrition labelling with other types of labelling (e.g. on sustainability) remains complex. Labelling policies are key to support influencing people in making healthy choices, but there is a need for EU-wide legislation and harmonisation of national labelling systems Changing behaviour: More research is needed to understand the choices people make, and how their behaviour can be influenced. A prerequisite to stimulate any change is to make alternative choices accessible and palatable. Targeting young people and children will be inductive of changes in the next generation. Healthiness of alternative foods: plant-based alternatives can contain a lot of salt, fats and refined carbohydrates, which is to be kept in mind. Digital food environment: the digital food environment is largely hidden, and includes marketing of unhealthy foods (to children), but also unhealthy meals that get ordered online. More data: absence of data is key hurdle, and the integration of key performance indicators for policies is key. Currently there is insufficient to assess the effect of interventions and to ensure they are on the right track. Gap between research outputs and desired outcomes: the impact of interventions on health and sustainability happens in long-term and impact indicators are often proxys. Also, it is difficult to link outcomes to specific interventions.237238239240243244246248249250There were no major divergences among participants. However, points critical for food systems transformation came to the surface, including: - the need for comprehensive definition of sustainability; - acknowledgement of complexity & interdependency of food systems; - the need for holistic, cross-sectoral, multi-level approaches to multifaceted complex issues; - the lack of education on healthy lifestyles, and especially on healthy sustainable food systems; - the need for comprehensive, interconnected, evidence-based policy; - the lack of data as key hurdle, and integration of key performance indicators; - the need to improve representation of businesses/industry, as well as of farmers & citizens in the FSSD, who all must be part of the solution; - existence of vested interests, and the polarisation that they can lead to; - the need to recognize the true cost of food; - the need for tradeoffs between local and global food systems; - the need to recognize differences in production, consumption, and the different needs of the food systems transformation between Global North & South.

2021-03-13 04:59:31204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/2119/203

1180000

The dialogue was organized with urgency, as contributions to the Food Systems Summit and to the elaboration of pathways to food systems transformation contributing to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. It took place in the form of discussions between a diversity of stakeholders to explore convergences and divergent views on the guiding questions under discussions. We had an open and safe space for every to feel comfortable engaging with one another. Each participant was listened to, ideas and points were collectively welcomed. We emphasized the importance of respect throughout all processes and chose prominent leaders to be the facilitators at each breakout room. We used the principles available online here as guiding principles in the design of this event as it was described in the handbook for Convenors of Independent Dialogues and in the link below: https://summitdialogues.org/overview/un-food-systems-summit-principles-for-engagement/The dialogue made sure to embrace the rich diverse group of people from financial institutions, foundations, investors, and entrepreneurs to identify and discuss the barriers to private capital investments in nutrition, as well as explore and develop new solutions for increasing these investments across the food system, including innovative financial products, prioritizing nutrition impact as well as an adequate financial and social return on investment. Building a comprehensive and inclusive dialogue also calls for morally dictated principles, and that was were we factored every aspect of the Principles of Engagement. We demonstrate the importance of inclusivity in building food system partnerships. We also highlighted trust as a key element of effective multi-stakeholder partnerships. This manifested in the feedback we received during and after the dialogue, which was very positive, and a wish to continue the dialogues and implement the solutions.The Principles of Engagement are a critical component that serves as the guiding moral metrics for an engaging dialogue, we would advise other dialogue convenors to follow them.

Yes

234238239241243245246248249251The event was organized as a multi-stakeholder dialogue focused on identifying barriers to entry for financiers and developing innovative solutions to address the needs of SMEs at all phases of development seeking to impact health and wellness by increasing access to healthy, affordable food will require engagement from different sectors and stakeholders such as: ● Public institutions ● Financial institutions and other development banks and funds ● Foundations and other philanthropic organizations ● Entrepreneurs in the food sector ● Social impact investors ● Nutrition experts ● Policy makers with focus on agriculture, nutrition and public health ● Private sector and food industry Central themes and discussion topics included: 1. Key challenges and possible game-changers for access to finance for agri-SMEs operating within food value chains. 2. The role of blended capital structures in de-risking and enhancing investments in the food and agri-SME space. 3. Challenges, trends, and promising solutions in smallholder finance. 4. Generating investable asset classes around nutritious foods. 5. The role of nutrition impact metrics as facilitators of alignment among investors, nutrition professionals, and agri-SMEs. 6. Connecting ideas, capital, and place: overcoming barriers for entrepreneurs to catalyze healthy, sustainable food access in economically disadvantaged communities.235238239241243245246248249251Investment in ‘nutritional food’ is likely to have a significant positive impact on government health spending globally. For instance, US federal spending on health is expected to be over 20% of the GDP. A study carried out by Cleveland Clinic suggests it can drop down to 7% with healthy habits and healthy eating. Some of the savings can be allocated to funding: o Research for alternative sources for protein in animal feed to reduce the feed cost. This will contribute towards affordability. a) Infrastructure for logistics and cold storage to reduce food wastage b) Subsidies for finance cost for SMEs o Campaign to create awareness and encouraging consumption of healthy food. This is likely to create demand and increase capacity utilization. o Tax exemption for foreign investments and capital investments on Education for SMEs on policies and how to deal with government bureaucracies. There is a need to build good credible investment pipelines: establishing and funding of independent platforms with the required industry-specific know-how, finance, legal, investment, and policy-specific expertise along the entire value chain of investing in the nutritional food asset class to identify, structure, and match attractive sustainable and scalable investment opportunities with potential investors. There is also a need for: • Bundling finance with inputs, knowledge, marketing partnerships • Better define the benefits across all outcomes of investments in nutrition-sensitive agriculture – also environment, social, etc. • Innovation at serving lower-income consumers – rather than just medium and higher-income consumers • Linking nutrition goal to poverty alleviation role • Designing blended structures with a deliberate agenda of data generation, financing innovation, learning, and informing policy, rather than just with an agenda of mobilizing capital on a time-bound basis. • Aligning metrics to make new investment products for food system capital (e.g. for nutrition and other areas of impact) both impact-meaningful and investor-meaningful, and not too complex. • Integration of value chains to the smallholders’ benefit with the right technology: digitizing value chains, enabling digital wallets on smartphones, monitoring individual plots enabling farmers to access pre-harvest advances when the need for finance is at its peak. Creating more traceability/transparency throughout the value chain. • Data infrastructure for metrics and standardized metrics, perhaps through the ESG lens, applying success from other sectors for a pathway to impact - we open ourselves to women’s empowerment, access to healthy foods and nutritious foods, etc. • Agreement on standards we use for healthy/unhealthy diets and how to identify gaps • Consensus on healthy/non-healthy diets and what guidance is used; then determine is there a viable business opportunity for investments in stimulating certain productions of foods • Identifying and credentialing new metrics that privilege nutrition and purpose, alongside profit, to uplift social enterprises and entrepreneurs who are creating solutions specifically for poor communities. • Developing and funding financing vehicles focused on financial return and nutrition impact, specifically serving underserved people and communities. • Creating networks to link SMEs to investors, including pathways for NGOs to support for-profit solutions, mitigate risk and develop effective proof of concepts.236238239241242243244245246248249251Discussion topic #1: Key challenges and possible game-changers for access to finance for agri-SMEs operating within food value chains: Direct tools and finance instruments should include: • Digital innovation a.o. to reduce transaction costs, filter deals, and link them to finance • Bundling finance with inputs, knowledge, marketing partnerships • Risk management – how to change the equation • Micro-loans • Smallholder financing through coops • An “Uber” for farm implements and TA • Size and cost of the investment case • Small ticket financing – ready for SMEs • Eligibility for incentives from governments • Nutrition-positive accelerator Other action improving finance for nutrition include: • Role of SME in improving nutrition – support, pilots, financing • Better define the benefits across all outcomes of investments in nutrition-sensitive agriculture – also environment, social, etc. • Clearer investment policies and tools – including subsidies • Link nutrition goal to poverty alleviation role • Poultry, eggs in SSA • Long term investment, due to pay-back time of investments • Grains industry is very competitive and political • Partnerships: who is going to join us? • Innovation at serving lower-income consumers – rather than just medium and higher-income consumers • Technical support to build our business plan – and help us to deal with bureaucracy • Have both women and men have access • Adapt technology developed in Western countries • Working through cities • Follow the Food Systems Dialogues at the national level and find country-owned solutions, including demand-driven research • Network formation, peer benchmarking, access to resources • Food Systems Leadership approach • Making staple crops more nutritious To tell if these actions are being successful: • Nutrition Key Performance Indicators • Income of farmers • Sustainability of the business (“are they still alive after 5 years?”) • Social returns: reduction of chronic diseases • Benefits for the entrepreneur • Benefits for the enterprise • Benefits on systems-level • Country-level metrics • Metrics on finance: o Cost of finance o Maturity available o Volume • Gender-equity • Need for “localized” metrics What contributions will our organizations make? • Nutrition Accelerator • Networks connecting SMEs • Developing metrics that measure the impact of investment in nutrition • Food Systems Innovation Hubs (also with WEF amongst others) • Digital Finance Service Innovations and Platforms236238239241243245246248249251Discussion topic #2: The role of blended capital structures in de-risking and enhancing investments in the food and agri-SME space. What actions in next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion topic? • Disaggregating the investors’ market and the areas of investment needs/recipients of finance in food systems and develop a clear mapping of what types of needs or investments are best suited to specific investors or types of capital. • Innovate in the product offering space, e.g. in designing and issuing large bonds that combine nutrition and other dimensions of sustainable food system impact. • Design blended structures with a deliberate agenda of data generation, financing innovation, learning, and informing policy, rather than just with an agenda of mobilizing capital on a time-bound basis. • Aligning metrics to make new investment products for food system capital (e.g. for nutrition and other areas of impact) both impact-meaningful and investor-meaningful, and not too complex. How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? • Cost of capital for agri-SMEs and smallholder farmers should be less than it is today • More capacity to invest in this space among national and local financial institutions • Company-level impacts for agri-SMEs in particular236238239241243245246248249251Discussion topic #3: Challenges, trends, and promising solutions in smallholder finance WB / FAO estimate 95% of farmers can be classified as smallholders (500 mln) producing 45% world’s food, 70% of the food deriving from Africa, SE Asia, and Latin America. Despite constraints (training, logistics, cheap imports, climate change effects), they obviously put food at tables worldwide. Still: 700 mln people are hungry, 3 bln people lack access to healthy food, particularly in developing countries, and due to scarce resources, food needs to be produced much more sustainably. So, there are opportunities, but what’s hampering smallholders to take them? In this session, we moved into a natural flow by discussing: It’s not about smallholders only (self-subsistence or emerging or exporting), but it’s about the ECOSYSTEM with and around them, including SMEs, the mom and pop stores, producer organizations, and cooperatives. • The Profit we need with business models and business cases, and the need to address this ECOSYSTEM with technology, leapfrog smallholders to the innovation potential with digitization and new financial solutions such as carbon credits as the new currency • The Planet we need to have benefit from new nature impact solutions by connecting the smallholder ECOSYSTEM to agroforestry projects or nutritious production such as fruit trees or cold chain solutions in the ecosystem with less food loss & waste. How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? • If smallholder farmers can organize themselves (more cooperatives, producer organizations): enables financing that is usually hardly possible -> increases rural livelihood enables cooperation to improve market position -> increases equitable livelihoods • If farmers have a voice themselves: where are they in the FSS dialogues? We hardly hear their voice. • If we see successful, scalable new and innovative business models: such as the project ACORN that was showcased as a Firestarter (see: https://channels.ft.com/foodrevolution/marketplace-for-change/) combining agroforestry with nutritious fruit trees, technical data and GPS monitoring (provided by Microsoft to smallholders) and carbon sequestration with new ways of income for smallholders. Integration of value chains to the smallholders’ benefit with the right technology: digitizing value chains, enabling digital wallets on smartphones, monitoring individual plots enabling farmers to access pre-harvest advances when the need for finance is at its peak. Creating more traceability/transparency throughout the value chain. Via Partnerships: such as the project Seed NL that was showcased (see annexed presentation): public-private money spent on seed and propagation materials as a catalyst for transformational change Blended Finance models: de-risking the new partnerships and innovative business models such as the Global Agriculture and Food Security Programme (GAFSP).236238239240241243245246248249251Discussion topic #4: Generating investable asset classes around nutritious foods, Investing in nutritional food must be one of the new investment themes for the next decade. The ageing population, increasing urbanization, excessive build-up debts, fiscal deficits, climate change commitments, and innovation all make a compelling case for governments globally to create a separate line asset class for Sovereign Wealth Funds and Development Funds. The aim must be not just an increase in life span but the quality-of-life span with a significant reduction in health costs and enhanced productivity. The following are the key game-changing ideas proposed for the UN Food Summit for creating nutritional food as an asset class: 1. Financing • Creating an asset class for ‘nutritional food’ will attract significant capital from institutional investors and funding agencies. • Investment in ‘nutritional food’ is likely to have a significant positive impact on government health spending globally. For instance, US federal spending on health is expected to be over 20% of the GDP. A study carried out by Cleveland Clinic suggests it can drop down to 7% with healthy habits and healthy eating. Some of the savings can be allocated to funding: o Research for alternative sources for protein in animal feed to reduce the feed cost. This will contribute towards affordability. a) Infrastructure for logistics and cold storage to reduce food wastage b) Subsidies for finance cost for SMEs o Campaign to create awareness and encouraging consumption of healthy food. This is likely to create demand and increase capacity utilization. o Tax exemption for foreign investments and capital investments on Education for SMEs on policies and how to deal with government bureaucracies. • Forestry and growing fruit and vegetables offer the cheapest & long-term option for earning carbon credits for fossil fuel and heavy energy-intensive industrial production. This is critical when globally CO2 emission will need to be reduced by 23 Gigatons by 2030 if the Paris Climate change aspirations are to be realized by 2050. This has a great potential to generate new and cheap capital for farmland. • Compared to conventional asset classes investing in farmland: o Has generated excess returns o is relatively less volatile o is uncorrelated o Is resilient to economic cycles o Represents a good hedge against inflation This is likely to encourage institutional investors to invest in farmland as a yielding asset. This should provide fresh capital for investing in nutritional food. 2. Building Good Credible Investment Pipelines Establishing and funding of independent platforms with the required industry-specific know-how, finance, legal, investment, and policy-specific expertise along the entire value chain of investing in the nutritional food asset class to identify, structure, and match attractive sustainable and scalable investment opportunities with potential investors.236238239241243245246248249251Discussion topic #5: The role of nutrition impact metrics as facilitators of alignment among investors, nutrition professionals, and agri-SMEs. We need: • Facilitated dialogues to create alignment -- we need to bring government, private sector, nonprofit, scientists, researchers, regulatory altogether and determine how to use the information we have to facilitate dialogue to figure out how to match gaps with solutions • Data infrastructure for metrics and standardized metrics, perhaps through the ESG lens, applying success from other sectors for a pathway to impact - we open ourselves to women’s empowerment, access to healthy foods and nutritious foods, etc. • Agreement on standards we use for healthy/unhealthy diets and how to identify gaps • Consensus on healthy/non-healthy diets and what guidance is used; then determine is there a viable business opportunity for investments in stimulating certain productions of foods • A clear roadmap of products that investors can go to invest in • Global theory of change for investing in nutrition SMEs to identify pathways to impact: along the lines of Lancet series that sets out best practices/ pathways across contexts (which will require very rigorous pilot level M&E), which would then allow us to use more process level/ intermediary indicators for larger-scale ongoing investments that are made according to that evidence-based roadmap. What are the lighter touch ways we can get more of a sense of what works? • Pick a few investments to spend a lot of money on M&E We need a global theory of change for investing in nutrition SMEs to identify pathways to impact: along the lines of Lancet series that sets out best practices/ pathways across contexts (which will require very rigorous pilot level M&E), which would then allow us to use more process level/ intermediary indicators for larger-scale ongoing investments that are made according to that evidence-based roadmap.236238239241243245246248249251Discussion topic #6: Connecting ideas, capital, and place: Overcoming barriers for entrepreneurs to catalyze healthy, sustainable food access in economically disadvantaged communities. Game-changer solutions include: • Identifying and credentialing new metrics that privilege nutrition and purpose, alongside profit, to uplift social enterprises and entrepreneurs who are creating solutions specifically for poor communities. • Developing and funding financing vehicles focused on financial return and nutrition impact, specifically serving underserved people and communities. • Create networks to link SMEs to investors, including pathways for NGOs to support for-profit solutions, mitigate risk and develop effective proof of concepts. How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? • Entrepreneurs will have an understanding of how to access multiple pathways to capital at all stages of the development process. • More models that create nutrition access in underserved communities will be piloted, evaluated, and scaled through traditional investment and NGO/SME partnerships. • The number of financing vehicles focused on financial return and nutrition impact will grow.237238239241243245246248249251• Challenges in data quality, data integration • Issues around the demand side are also important – progress requires also developing more absorptive demand for the capital that blending can mobilize among local financial institutions and investors. It also requires more capacity to absorb finance among agri-SMEs – who very often need a lot of TA investment not only to be bankable but also to deliver fully the positive food system impact they can potentially deliver- and more demand for nutritious foods. • Challenges in the incentive frameworks governing most blended vehicles and the time frame in which they typically operate, which does not encourage data generation, building local financial capacity, learning, or transparency in reporting. • Decisions about nutrition happen in complex environments at the household and individual level; we should not assume that fixing finance is going to solve that. • Local currency lending is another challenging area. • Market-level challenges affecting the capacity of nutritious foods that are not fully “up to standards” in terms of size or appearance to reach the markets where consumers who need these foods are located, with resulting losses in terms of nutrition but also of incomes for farmers/aggregators/transporters etc. • There are many different types of metrics -- metrics for donor-driven nutrition measurement -- anthropometry, mortality outcomes, height for age, development outcomes • There is a lag in terms of metrics that have evidence-based that have been invested in and where programs and projects have been defined to test those metrics • There is no silver bullet to incentivize or a single indicator to measure • We need enough data to make linkages between dietary quality and health outcomes - it then becomes easier to identify indicators for success • Healthy, unhealthy - green, yellow, red measurement systems are not effective because who defines this? • Determine whether investors are going to invest because of a positive impact on nutrition or because there is an economic incentive for investments to make a positive impact on nutrition -- if the latter, who makes decisions on incentives? • Reduce uncertainty around investments; build consumer value around food (what is nutritious); explore how ESG metrics were originally designed to manage risk and how they can be applied on a pathway to impact • SMEs providing nutritional, perishable food at low cost to communities are challenged to create economies of scale-need to create shared learnings around supply chain management. • Technology is critical to reducing costs, but adoption by businesses and by consumer base is challenging-need to create proof points around adoption/test hybrid solutions that respond to all levels of technological competency. • A lot of capital available in developing markets is restricted, time-bound, philanthropic aid – need to work with donors to create an understanding of the impact on business, provide funding in a way that enables SMEs to thrive while not undercutting traditional charitable efforts. • Perception of “social enterprises” among investors as less profitable than traditional for-profit counterparts need to create a set of metrics that privilege social impact, especially related to nutrition. • Access to data and data ownership (we need a global framework, maybe the FSS can provide guidance): how can we boost data collection and ensure data design with smallholders’ interest at heart? • More transparency and traceability in the value chain: by coalitions of corporates and connections between the key players in the agri value chain • Metrics / framework for real True Pricing and True Cost Accounting (via the Science Group of the FSS?) • Information asymmetry • Poor infrastructure • Risks – production, yield, weather • Market infrastructure • Internal SME issues: Financial controls, accounting etc. • Expectations of returns and duration of the financing • Micro-financing shows good repayments when based on proper support • Women secure good repayment track records • Connection between policymakers and SMEs is crucial  national FSD • Assume more risk with development programs and learn of the failures • Small tickets to overcome minimum amount for investment • Lack of collateral, missing land rights or ownership structures • Market dynamics require more flexible financing structures • Knowledge with financiers • Finance combined with capacity building – business case, how to deal with the market, how to work in a demand-driven way, how to deal with the public structure • If you’re not “the best”, you won’t get finance – you have to be the winner – especially also when age counts • Aid skewing the marketplace

2021-03-13 12:11:27205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/2736/135

1990291254050108883

The participants cut across the various facets of the food system. The urgency of actions to make the food systems work for everyone and the environment was stressed during the preparations for the inception dialogue, and in all speeches, good will messages, and presentations. None of the action tracks was given more importance than another.Recognize complexity: The lead paper ‘Nigeria’s food system: challenges, prospects and the way forward’ brought the complexities of the food system to the fore with a call for a holistic course of action that will ensure that Nigeria’s food system Deliver high quality diet and affordable nutrition, be inclusive, efficient, resilient, and sustainable, and work for everyone.Need to plan for dialogues based on the challenges of the new normal with regards to the COVID-19 pandemic – consideration of the mode of participation (virtual or physical or both). Infrastructural limitations with internet access and quality will be a limiting factor to participation of people in areas with limited infrastructure.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The major focus of the Inception dialogue was a comprehensive exploration of the Nigeria Food Systems along the five action tracks and levers of the UN Food Systems Summit. Participants conducted a thorough diagnosis of the food systems, the functioning, major stakeholders, potentials, vulnerabilities, as well as opportunities for its transformation so that it can deliver high quality diet and affordable nutrition; be inclusive, efficient, resilient, and sustainable; and work for everyone. It was clear from discussions that excessive focus on agriculture and food security resulted in an unintended consequence of creating a less diverse food environment that is unable to provide an adequate variety and affordable, safe, and nutrient dense food. Food systems in Nigeria are vulnerable to shocks, stresses, and disruptions. Our food systems are threatened by climate change and stresses due to the impact of drought, flooding, erosion, inflation, the COVID-19 pandemic, and conflict. Poverty, unemployment, and insufficient food reserves limit the capacity of our food systems to cope with shocks and stresses. The COVID pandemic has amplified the fragility, inequities and suboptimal functionality of our current food systems thus requiring significant transformations in polices, practices and business models that would make our food systems fit for purpose and enable the delivery of the most important functions rooted in robust evidence base, country context and emerging global trends and realities. There are significant food safety challenges across the food systems domain. Most investments in food safety have been for food exports. Because of unsafe food, 1 in 11 Nigerians fall ill yearly, 21 million cases of foodborne diseases are documented and the annual loss of human capital due to foodborne diseases is estimated at about $16 billion. Most times, the vulnerable group are the most affected by the challenge of food safety and also the most nutritious foods have the most complicated challenge around food safety. It is therefore important to note that as Nigeria allows unsafe foods are allowed to pass through the borders to the people, the sovereignty of the nation is surrendered to others. There are huge post-harvest losses within the food systems; we lose more than half of what we produce, and this comes with significant impact on the environment. Inequality and power imbalances at the household, community, national and global levels are consistently constraining the ability of our food systems to ensure poverty reduction and sustainable, equitable livelihoods. Despite many years of investment in policies, programmes, institutions, and the broader enabling environment, we see glaring indications of a broken food system.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251▪ We have a unique opportunity to build our new national food systems narrative into our key national development plans for 2025, 2030 and 2050. This will require radical thinking, smart partnerships, but strong political will and courage to advance the food systems transformation we need in Nigeria. ▪ We need to find a narrative that brings everyone into a shared space in ways that create the right connectivity across the various subsystems and domains and helps us to align around the most important functions of our food systems and enable us work towards achieving one that is sustainable and well-functioning while leveraging the power of our diverse strengths and perspectives. ▪ We need to set up a food systems focused development agenda that prioritizes healthy diets and affordable nutrition, and that is inclusive, efficient, resilient, and sustainable, while working for everyone, will rebuild our economy, create jobs, spur growth across sectors and sustain our ecosystems. ▪ We need to develop a narrative that supports nourishing and goes beyond feeding, that makes human health and nutrition a priority, that emphasizes the primacy of diet quality, that would eliminate hunger while addressing all forms of malnutrition, considers planetary health, and is pro-growth while supporting job creating and livelihoods and sustainable economic development on the long term. ▪ We must counter the prevailing powerful but outmoded narratives that have guided our policy, research and investment priorities and practices to date, which focused on increasing yields, based on export-oriented models, informed by external influencers rather than country contexts and priorities, commodity focused, with no significant considerations for human health and nutrition, planetary health, and sustainable development (Global Alliance Health Narrative, 2020). ▪ While these transformations will be a journey, we must start by taking some strategic and immediate transition steps – the suggested steps include - Transformative policy reviews rooted in a new and common narrative and anchored on philosophy of food as a human right in line with UN conventions. - Operationalize a coordinated Food Systems data transformation agenda - Scale/Democratize proven innovations that considers the common man at the common market - Ramp up investment in Food Systems research & development - Depoliticize, expand, and modernize social protection programs in Nigeria. - Promote optimum breastfeeding practices - Operationalize resilient financing mechanisms by leveraging domestic and international facilities - Ramp up investment in infrastructures that support critical innovations & opportunities with special focus on rural infrastructures - Build critical leadership, technical and human and organizational capacities - Operationalize key guidelines rooted in transformed policies, data & the new narrative - Engage in fair trade, taking relevant country and global contexts into consideration - Foster transformative and smart partnerships - Revise and implement the National Resilience framework - Redirect Policy – aim at getting youths engaged in the agriculture sector using technology and e-commerce. - Implement plans to mechanize agricultural production to enable innovation and increase resilience and productivity with a focus on nutrition - Scale up sustainable technologies including cold chain technologies to tackle post-harvest food losses - Pass the food quality and safety bill into law - Change the culture of adequate food consumption by concentrating on the new generation, e.g., children - Put in place a monitoring framework to ensure implementation of all recommendations for the improvement of food systems by all actors236238243244245246247248249250251Group 1: Poor people are able to eat nutritious foods that will not make them sick Actions urgently needed Strand 1: Reducing hunger and inequality • Provision of vouchers that can be exchanged for food at decentralized levels (e.g., LGA level or through religious centres) • Increasing food production and reduction of postharvest losses • Involving the private sector to address hunger in their immediate communities and in the workplace. • Use public hospitals as a delivery platform for reaching the poor with food within the catchment areas of such facilities • Public works programmes to enable the poor earn cash for food. • Increasing purchasing power of the poor by increasing access to credit through schemes such as TraderMoni Strand 2: Increasing availability and affordability of nutritious foods • Scaling-up household processing methods that reduce food loss and waste • Scaling-up food demonstration sessions in health facilities • Expand the availability and consumption of biofortified crops • Increase the production and consumption of neglected indigenous foods • Promotion of aquaculture among women and youth • Food fortification • Genetically modified foods to address reduced productivity and yields due to land ageing Strand 3: Ensuring safe food • Pass the Food Safety Bill and legislate food safety • Provision of portable water in markets and other public facilities. • Increased focus on market sanitation to ensure that markets are clean, including paving of vending areas so that food is not displayed on muddy ground. • Regulation of street food vendors and restaurants • Greater regulation of ingredients in industrially produced foods • Developing guidelines for food safety that would be widely disseminated, and getting consumers to demand safer food. Cross-Cutting • Public education around production of safe foods, including responsible use of agro-chemicals; as well as nutrition education to promote adequate consumption of nutritious foods, including promotion of exclusive breastfeeding and enforcement of the code on marketing of breast milk substitute • Homestead food production addresses all three strands. Home gardens can prioritize nutritious foods (track 2). Growing one’s food ensures safety from contamination with agro-chemicals. • Ensuring nutrition-sensitive and food safety conscious social protection programmes • Development of food based dietary guidelines • Reduce the layers of personnel and bureaucracy involved in public policy implementation and increase the ease of compliance with guidelines • Increase modern biotechnology research, financing for the food sector, including financing of SMEs • Establish credible and integrated data base for detailed food systems information • Establish clusters of SMEs to foster business-to-business partnerships • Establish a Food Systems Bill to provide legal framework for strengthening food security and nutrition programmes Who should take the actions? • Food industry actors need to develop products that can improve nutrition of the base of the populat • Private sector to address hunger in their immediate communities and in the workplace. • Health facilities will provide nutrition education • Governments at all levels should implement food for public works program Ways in which progress could be assessed • Improved quality at input level of food production, including training and extension services. • Quality standards defined for all raw materials. . Good manufacturing practices . Strong M&E framework established . Availability of a communication system236239243244245246247248249250251Group 2: Shift to Healthy and Sustainable Consumption Patterns Actions urgently needed 1. Policy redirection and strategies to involve youth in urban agriculture e.g., use of technology such as e-commerce within the value-chains. 2. Innovative agricultural practices such as urban farming, which are climate friendly, reduce food loss due to proximity of farms to consumers and will improve nutrition security by retaining the quality of food produce especially fruits and vegetables using hydroponics, aquaponics, vertical farming etc. 3. Create awareness and communicate with policy makers about food systems: translating data and available information into materials for effective engagement of policy makers as well as at community level, media, and society. Employing next generation /life cycle approach by building healthy and sustainable diet into the school curriculum. 4. Health sector priority: Investments in Primary Health Care has great potential for engaging gatekeepers, traditional rulers, community actors, mothers, and children in the shift towards healthy consumption. 5. Product formulation: Nutrition considerations must be embraced much more by industry and food processors. There is also the need for a common set of country guidelines for nutrition that will be useful for consumer protection. 6. Coordination: It is necessary to advance a joint work plan and implementation strategy especially for cross-cutting activities that can drive this shift that we desire to see. 7. Data generation and management: Improving data generation, management and integration into policy-decision making will aid the functionality of Country Nutrition Programming. Who should take the actions? • Technoserve: experienced and has vast capacity in value chain development for entrepreneurship and nutrition and making value chains more nutrition sensitive. • Choices International: for technical support in developing nutrition guidelines/standards for processed foods and front-of-pack labelling. • Sustainable Development Goals Talks initiative: awareness creation especially for the youth through various media such as photos, online messages, and content. • FAO: promoting school gardening to engage pupils and students as agents of change in the community. The programme also teaches other skills, including entrepreneurial skills, marketing skills, and equipping learners to contribute positively to the economy as adults. • Scaling-up Nutrition in Nigeria: CS-SUNN already works with youth leaders recognized by the SUN Global Movement and supported by SCI. The organisation can therefore use this platform to reach out to the youths. • Universities and research institutes: For research and training. Some have mandates for improving the value chain for most of Nigerian staples and food crops. The results need to be curated and harvested for more productive use. Ways in which progress could be assessed • Reduction in stunting, micronutrient deficiencies, NCDs • Number of people reached with information • Reduction in food waste, number of innovative drives in reducing food waste • Reduction in post-harvest losses. • Increased discourse and formal dialogues in food systems in Nigeria • Increased investments in food systems innovations, especially cold chain infrastructure • Number of policies that encourage consumption of healthy diet • Consumers demanding more of healthier food products. . Increased number of youth entrepreneurs . Increased number of front pack labelling . The number of family life extension programs into agricultural extension scheme.236240243244245246247248249250251Group 3: Global Food System at Crossroads: Policy Landscape and Governance Factor for Boosting Nature Positive Production at Scale in Nigeria: The Right to Food Approach Actions urgently needed 1. Reorientation and refocusing of the philosophical approach ▪ Philosophical framework – (Right to food - Food as a fundamental human right in Nigeria) 2. Enhancing sustainability of planetary nature ▪ Policy framework – National Food and Nutrition Policy ▪ Sustainability Framework (National System for Food and Nutrition Security NSFNS) 3. Building Resilience of Nigeria’s food system ▪ Resilience framework (National Sustainable Food and Nutrition Security Resilience Framework NSFNSRF) 4. Develop Policy/framework for Organic Agriculture ▪ There is need to popularise Organic Agriculture because it reduces exposure to harmful chemicals, facilitates healthy soil formation, combats the effect of Global Warming etc Issues raised during discussion • Huge investment and awareness in biotechnology are needed to boost, sustain, and protect agriculture- The use of biotechnology to develop crops that are climate smart (Develop seeds that are resistant thus reducing the use of chemicals thus protecting and sustaining the ecosystem). Biotechnology can also be used to produce Functional foods (fortified) • Use of technology to mitigate environmental effects of agriculture production. • The need to have a framework supporting the ecological market (Carbon Market). • Family farming is not promoted in Nigeria. The family farming concept is good in supporting sustainable agriculture. • Urban Food Production and systems. This would help the youths • R&D and extension system. Farmer led research (demand driven) bottom-up participatory approach in research and extension. • The importance of value chain in the food system. • The capacity to add value across priority value chains is needed for the development of the food system. • Establish regional food industrial raw materials hub in Nigeria. This should be private sector driven. • Water policy. Improve the State of water asset and optimize the water asset for agriculture, portable water, and power. • Integrated agriculture would also help water management and protect the ecosystem e.g., crops and livestock Who should take the actions? • Making available improved high yielding, pest resistance and climate smart seedling as well as nutritionally enhanced seedlings – Federal & States’ Ministries of Agriculture, Research Institutes, National Seed Council, Private seed marketing firms • Resuscitating the agriculture extension services – Federal and State governments • Agricultural Policy consistency – Federal Government & Federal Ministry of Agriculture & Rural Development (FMARD) • Promote policy in organic and ecosystem farming – (FMARD) • Policy advocacy, policy brokerage and policy action research on the actionable proposals during implementation (Farm and Infrastructure Foundation-FIF) Ways in which progress could be assessed Through monitoring and Key performance indicators using timeline and regular interactive meetings with all the key Stakeholders • Proportion of farmers that adopted and planted improved variety of seeds or inputs • Number of states that has revived Agricultural extension services • Number of states with functional and funded Agricultural extension services • Proportion of farmers or and farming entities that adopted and are practicing organic and eco-friendly agriculture.236241243244245246247248249250251Group 4: Advancing Equitable Livelihoods in Nigeria Actions urgently needed 1. Deliberate efforts to improve technology uptake in agriculture with a focus on access by vulnerable people and the poor, creating opportunities for technology transfers: • mechanization, improved seeds/crops, alternative pest control and yield enhancing techniques • Digital inclusion to enhance market intelligence penetration in rural communities (prices, demand); • Use technology to promote food safety e.g., Aflasafe uptake 2. Ensure viable links to market networks for smallholder farmers, especially youth and women. 3. Address key systemic issue that mostly affect women, such as • Boost irrigation through climate-friendly technologies, e.g., such micro-irrigation to allow year-round production based on demand rather than seasons, while avoiding water depletion • Adequate food storage infrastructure to address waste and post-harvest losses. • Ensure access to credit and land, including tackling social and legal norms especially in areas where women choices on income and land tenure are restricted • Generate knowledge on reduction of post-harvest losses and crop diversification and ensure deployment of female agricultural extension workers to enable bespoke advice and improved relations with women farmers. • Longer-term, develop a coordinated, multi-stakeholder agenda for social inclusion to address gender imbalances in food production, commercialization, and access. 4. Address key systemic issues affecting youth. Some of them can be tackled with similar actions as for women. Other specific actions are: • Enable a financial protection framework for youth, including insurance for crop loss. • Adequate access to financing to support adequate land beyond subsistence farming and adequate technologies for viable yields and quick returns. • Improve options for vocational and agronomy / agro-processing studies. 5. Push a deliberate implementation of the multisectoral nutrition and food safety policy to boost food and nutrition security and healthy diets. This may include specific tools to protect the most vulnerable: • Tax waivers / subsidies for healthy foods, given that the poor are those who cannot afford healthy diets. • Taxes and other normative actions to reduce consumption of unhealthy products, e.g., sugar taxes, labeling, communication on the impact breastmilk substitutes tailored to poor and people with limited literacy. 6. Dietary /nutrition- food safety principles/ eating nutritious food deliberate policy. Research should not be only driven by demand, but also have the goal of ending poverty, such as shifting research priority from cash crops and export-driven staple foods to marginalized crops that are often more climate adaptive. Who should take the actions? All actors are involved: government leading, but also academia, technical agencies, private sector and the international community (through technical and financial assistance but also a more coherent approach to international food trade). Ways in which progress could be assessed • Proportion of youth in food and agricultural jobs. • Demonstrable change in access by women to credit, land, and technologies. • Demonstrable policy change around consumer protection, food safety and healthy diets promotion, including evidence of bespoke fiscal and labeling policies • Demonstrable infrastructural investments and budget allocations form climate-smart agriculture and food processing reform • Longer-term: verifiable changes in consumption patterns and uptake of healthy diets.236242243244245246247248249250251Group 5: Building the Resilience of Food Systems in Nigeria to withstand Vulnerabilities, Shocks and Stresses Actions urgently needed for Improved Food availability for resilience a. Put in place structures (such as silos, warehouses, cottage processing facilities, cold chain logistics) to reduce post-harvest losses in order to have increased food reserve that is safe and nutritious. b. Supply of /improve access to quality agricultural inputs to farmers in a timely manner c. Implement the National Agricultural Resilience Framework and Strategy Document d. Improve key agricultural practices to have all year-round production by having a robust dry season farming/irrigation e. Observation that the Nigerian agricultural sector is quite resilient given its performance during the 2016 and 2020 economic recessions the country experienced. So, the 2 aspects that are challenging now are insecurity and environmental stresses. Need for local solutions. So, Empower/build the capacity of local communities/institutions to be able to address some of the challenges especially security and environmental issues that are militating against agricultural production. f. Engage in environmental extension services with a clear approach to control the norm in the society as against the traditional agricultural extension g. Evaluate or audit interventions that have been done especially those on smart agricultural practices on in the time past and do a modelling of impact and strategize on the way forward h. Improvement in the traditional food systems and indigenous foods to build resilience which have been used by the communities to navigate and cope with shocks i. Employ the services of security men to also check the menace of banditry, kidnaping and farmers/herders’ conflicts. j. Promote access to funds by young and women farmers to increase productivity and also build household food and nutrition security k. Review, update and implement the Nigeria population policy to address the population growth and align with rate of food production to reduce gap as well as proportion of hungry people in Nigeria l. Multisectoral coordination of the Nigeria food system with one plan and one monetary framework by the MB&NP to bring all stakeholders to one table Who should take the actions? • Academia to assist by conducting demand driven researches that will promote resilience • Government to invest more on research activities in various higher institutions of learning, collate research findings that can help in building resilience. ARCN to take the lead • FMARD to lead the key stakeholders in the private, non-governmental and development sectors to review the existing National Agricultural Resilience strategy documents to include the emerging issues of resilience and also ensure their implementation • Use of multi-sectoral approach to achieve sustainable food systems that is inclusive and sustainable to be led by MB&NP Ways in which progress could be assessed • Proportion of households using ecological food production techniques. • Number of soil conservation projects implemented • Records of quantity of food produced within community per season/cycle • Existing cooperatives, available rural credits, and producers with access to credits2372432442452462472482492502511. At the core of a lot of divergences is that some stakeholders prefer processes that rely on individual/household level change (demand side actions), while others prefer processes that rely on institutional change (supply-side actions). Both types of actions are necessary. There is a need for institutional actions, such as regulation of the food environment, but there is also a need for individual change that would make consumers demand a better food environment. To manage divergence, there is a need to broker disagreements so that each side accepts that other arguments are valid. It is necessary to ensure that each side will get at least some of their concerns addressed. How do we build resilience around insecurity – need to do a deep dive to find out the root causes and address 2. Reduction of fiscal space: this requires a rational prioritisation of measures within food systems reform that are more likely to succeed in tackling inequality in livelihoods, as well as manging competing priorities beyond food systems that can have the biggest impact on GoN strategy priorities within its various economic and development plans. 3. Lobbying and interference by special interests: to achieve an equitable access to affordable healthy diets, the Government of Nigeria will have to commit to strongly reduce the influence of interest groups within the food systems, such as Big Food multinationals and local industries that have near-oligopolist footprint in food systems. Only with an open market focused on what people really need, rather than what food companies what consumers to buy, there can be a shift to better eating and more affordable health foods. 4. Social norms are difficult to change as a section of society may have vested interests or incentives to ensure that the balances of power (elites vs. poor, men vs. women, urban vs. rural) do not change. Hence the need for deliberate approaches to enforce policies for redistribution and social norm change, especially for the benefit of women and the youth. 5. The assumption that youths would want to work in agriculture or agro-processing / food manufacturing needs to be assessed by asking the question of “what the youth want”: any job? Urban jobs? Safe white-collar jobs? Well-paid jobs? – the assumption that a large proportion of youth is ready to be employed in low-paying, low-tech industries might be misplaced, and the answer to these questions can drive youth and demographic transition policy design. 6. Need to ensure that innovation and technology transfer is fair: “for the common market and the common man”, and not just for businesses and entrepreneurs with the right relations and networks. 7. Stakeholders working in silos - Various organisations have different foci, interests and commitments which sometimes create variances that may hinder collective actions to shift to healthy and sustainable diet and food consumption patterns in Nigeria. This calls for intentional efforts for synergy and coordination of partnerships to reduce overlaps and to help operationalise and coordinate the food system and nutrition in Nigeria. The question then is - who should drive Food systems coordination in Nigeria? As the Ministry of Finance, Budget and National Planning currently coordinates food and nutrition at the national level, there should be drives for food systems capacity strengthening; partners can second food systems experts for technical support. In addition, the role of the SUN movement multi-stakeholder platform can be explored in the coordination of food systems dialogues. The SUN platform can be relevant regarding private sector engagement, which needs to be streamlined and more profitably engaged. It is also suggested that the Governance structure of the National Food and Nutrition policy should be fully operationalised particularly considering the State and LGA levels, as well as the diversity of sectors involved. 8. Preponderant national emphasis on undernutrition: The longstanding emphasis on undernutrition and micronutrient deficiencies may lead to a push-back when the issue of shift towards healthy diets is put forward and overnutrition with non-communicable diseases rise to the front burner. In framing discussions on healthy and sustainable food systems, the focus on the role of diet in the control of NCDs is important regarding reformulating products to reduce trans fats, salts, and sugars. This way, the food system approach will target the double burden rather than focus on undernutrition and micronutrient deficiency 9. Trust deficits: Observed trust deficit among various groups (e.g. government and civil society, government and private sector, etc) may also be a hindrance, and should therefore be addressed.

2021-03-13 20:50:57204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/2643/120

2601015100111531312162516111

MY World México, GreenPretzel and the Center for Social Innovation and Food Security began the dialogue with the idea of ​​bringing together all those interested in promoting the SDGs through the analysis of local food systems in Mexico. We invited all possible actors within the food system context of our region, with the idea of ​​having a diversity of opinions that will help us better understand the problems that afflict local food systems in Mexico. We invite producers, small local businesses, producer organizations, students, schools, universities, business leaders, researchers, media, local governments and consumers. We requested the support of those interested in improving the local food system with the idea of ​​having all the approaches, recognizing the complexity, being respectful of all, with the idea of ​​acting urgently on the actions, promoting confidence to increase the participation of the greatest diversity. In addition, several meetings were held to prepare the dialogue where the issues were discussed, facilitators were sought out, training for facilitators was organized, a work plan for the dialogue was generated, and tasks were observed. A dissemination campaign was also started on the social networks of the participating organizations.The topics we addressed in the dialogue such as food education, innovation, farmers, supply and demand for local products and women, are aligned with the principles of the summit on food systems. We seek, with these issues, to adopt an inclusive and diverse approach, recognizing the complexity of the issue and understanding that if we do not act to improve our local food systems, immediately, problems such as public health and the lack of healthy food will increase the problem making it difficult to handle in the future.It is important to take into account each of the principles with the idea of incorporating them in each of the specific topics and improving ideas on how to solve the problems discussed. An inclusive approach is essential so you should consider a diversity of ideas and solutions.

Yes

234238239240241242245246247248249251Our dialogue is called "Towards the sustainability of local Food Systems and the design of public policies in Mexico" and it is attempting to analyze how we can promote each of the five proposed courses of action. For this, our dialogue aims to discuss local food systems; What are the problems? What are the causes of these problems? And what effects do they have? In order to promote actions, mechanisms and public policies in Mexico that improve local food systems for the benefit of the most vulnerable population in our country. For this, we organize our dialogue in five round tables with themes, which we believe are the most relevant for the local food systems in Mexico, expecting to make it healthy, inclusive, resilient, sustainable and sustainable. We are aiming to address and discuss these issues considering next topics. Education on health and nutritional food. Peasants and food producers as a fundamental link in food systems. The supply, demand and distribution of local food. Innovation processes in food production Diversity and gender perspective in food systems.235238239240241246247248249Table 1: "Education on nutritious foods and health", ignorance about the comprehensive and multifactorial vision of food systems was identified as a central problem, which has three main causes: the first is crystallized information (that is, little diffused), that it does not reach all levels or contexts mainly due to problems of access, distribution, and infrastructure; the second cause is the stigmatization of food and dietary systems, caused by the bad habits from the psychological, practical and experience, and the third cause is the abandonment of farming practices or regional practices, caused mainly by the transformation of socioeconomic systems, a decontextualized nutritional education and the abandonment and ignorance of sustainable practices such as backyard production and family production systems, such as the cornfield. The greatest effects of this main problem are the lack of accessibility to holistic knowledge, disconnection, decontextualization and eating disorders and environmental deterioration. Table 2: "Peasants and food producers as a fundamental link in food systems", a structural problem of production and consumption systems was identified (production with an economic objective leaving aside the social objective), due to three main causes: the first is the invisibility and devaluation of the role of peasants in the value, production and education chains, the second is the existence of a broken, individualized and non-collective peasant social fabric and the third is low access to financing and technological innovation. The main effects of this problem are inappropriate current public policies on local agriculture or poor small producers as well as generational and gender gap for access to land. Table 3: “The supply, demand and distribution of local food”, the lack of adequate spaces in quantity and characteristics to sell local agricultural products was identified as the main problem, this is because globalization benefits large global supply chains and it excludes local food systems, also because there is little political will, in addition to unequal quota charges to sell and a few knowledge about food systems; therefore, the main effects of this problem are two, producers waste their local products, lack of spaces that make local production visible, which ending up in of a food dependency. Table 4: "Innovation processes in food production", it was identified as the main problem that innovation in food has an economic objective, so it is not proposed as an objective to meet the needs of the entire population, this is due to the following causes: lack of regulation in the production of food, a culture of production for profit in the preparation of food that leaves out other segments of the most vulnerable population; and finally lack of innovation adapted to the specific local needs of the towns and regions of Mexico, which translate into the absence of nutritious and quality local food and the increase in the consumption of ultra-processed products from global markets, this has the effect compared with than the general population, mainly those with the most limited resources, present problems of malnutrition (malnutrition, overweight and obesity) and food deserts in colonies and outskirts populations. And finally, in table 5 "Diversity and gender perspective in food systems", it was found that the problem is that commercial agricultural production is mainly male task and this conception is maintained despite the growing participation of women, we found five main causes: the first is that the contributions of women in production, food and nutrition are not properly recognized, the second is that the potential / capability of women to produce food is not recognized, the third reason is that women have much less access to land ownership than men, the fourth reason is that women do not have the same time as men to dedicate themselves to productive activities, and the last reason is that women are not empowered in a significant way. This problem has the following effects: The perpetuation of machismo, the exclusion of women in decision-making, the loss of opportunity to improve biodiversity, nutrition and resilience faced due to external factors, and the decline in the health of people and ecosystems.236238239246247249251Lack of knowledge about the comprehensive and multifactorial vision of food systems, the lack of accessibility to holistic knowledge, the disconnection of education about food, the decontextualization of health and nutrition, generate public health problems (overweight, obesity, hypertension, diabetes, among others ), this overconsumption of unsustainable products also generates serious environmental damage.236239240241245248249Lack of public policies on local agriculture or small producers, inappropriate policies to address local problems in food and nutrition and strengthening of local production, the broken, individualized and non-collective peasant social fabric and a generation gap and gender for access to land.236238241242245246248249Lack of adequate spaces in quantity and characteristics to sell local agricultural products, little political will to support markets for local products and their consumption, low prices for local products, lack of spaces that make local production visible and food dependency.236239240241246248249The economic objective does not meet the needs of the entire population, lack of regulation in food production, a culture of production for profit in food processing that leaves out other segments of the most vulnerable population, lack of innovation adapted to the specific local needs of the towns and regions of Mexico, increasing the consumption of ultra-processed products from global markets, problems of malnutrition (malnutrition, overweight and obesity) and food desert and outskirts populations.236238239240241242246247248251Commercial agricultural production is a mainly male task and this concept is maintained despite the increasing participation of women, the contributions of women in production, food and nutrition are not properly recognized, the potential / capabilities of women to produce food, women have much less access to land ownership than men, women do not have the same time as men to engage in productive activities, women are not significantly empowered, perpetuation of machismo, exclusion of women in decision-making, loss of opportunity to improve biodiversity, nutrition and resilience to external factors, and the decline in the health of people and ecosystems.237238239240241246247248249The work tables were held with a high level of discussion and points of view on the issues raised, we did not find large areas of divergence but there was consensus in most of the conclusions. In general, the differences founded were on how to give a more social approaches to public actions and public policies to improve local food systems. How the heterogeneity of the territory and the conditions of the peasants complicate the design of actions and policies for their attention. How to address problems specifically or view the problem in a systemic way. How the food system is a reflection of the existing disparities in the social system as a consequence of actions in public policies.

2021-03-14 04:52:38204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/2965/2494184

319351030375432537133287392171757130267

All principles were incorporated we advocated the need to act with urgency, complemented the work of others, were , had facilitators build trust and work to further cooperation beyond the dialogue, were inclusive, took and discussed the issues from a systems perspective, emphasized the need to appreciate systems, the complexity, need to align actions to global goals in terms of the 17 SDGs the Paris Agreement and the Sendai Framework for Disaster risk reductionThe dialogue reflected principles through active engagement, participation, more time for dialogue and less time for speeches, the format followed the prescribed format and inserted an additional opportunity for reflections after the plenary provided by facilitators. All ideas were recorded and a green light thinking approach was utilized. All volunteers were coopted into the dialogue. Participants were asked for agreement on being recording and a framework for engagement was establish well after the dialoguesThe opportunities for reflection after the plenary was a good insert As part of the welcome chat message share the group discussions and have members choose discussion groups but still give the IT opportunity to balance the group Use the polls and surveys to assist with the who is in the audience and use a prompt poll as a filler while IT is establishing the rooms The co facilitators is a good idea as a contingency for internet connectivity issues

Yes

234238239240241242244246250251This dialogue examined pathways to a more sustainable and resilient food system. The Discussion Topics were 1. Sustainable Consumption and Production 2. Food Waste 3. Sustainable Nutrition and Diets 4. Sustainable City and Community development 5. Sustaining Sustainable Livelihoods and resilient community development235238239240241242244245246249250251Notes from Groups Need for curriculum reform Need for alignment of food systems and actions to Global Goals (SGDGs, Sendai Framework and Paris Agreement) Need for accelerated action and support for accelerated action on mitigation, adaptation and building community resilience Need for stronger governance arrangements and sustainable procurement at all levels. There is a need to give preference to sourcing healthy nutritious and affordable food There is need for improved support systems to regional farmers to create an improved market and a sustainable reduction of price of locally produced food There is a need for innovative and circular economy strategies to reduce food waste and to use models to create economy for informal sectors Need to turn waste to value. Composting, bio gas, bioenergy and so on Need to listen and learn from each other, the farmer, the community and to create fora for ongoing engagement, interaction, cooperation and collective action. Solutions Turn waste to value driven initiative Need for wider and ongoing engagement on the issues. Active engagement in the solution finding, solution design and solution execution and joint action in monitoring (studying) and improving actions implemented. There is need to implement a model of continual learning and experimentation to support the enhancement process. A wider Deployment of Aquaponics as part of developing a sustainable and resilient food system. Integrating the concept into at risk youth intervention, offender reintegration and prison rehabilitation. there is need to invest in taking initiatives to scale and also supporting industry for ex prisoners on reentry into the society There is Need to move from talk to more robust systems and action. Systems that support ongoing not one off engagement, systems that support thinking together, working together, learning together and implementing together, Systems that support ongoing grass root action and fund community led initiatives without intervention of state and government agencies. It was felt that government bureaucracy was a barrier in accelerating improvement in standards, engagement and innovation. it was also felt Government and multilateral financing provided through government was a sure fire way not to reach the small holder farmers and better representation can be made by civil society There is need to find innovative ways to manage the supply, add value and extend the shelf life. Greater investments into the processing capability, capacity and competence would go a long way in improving supply. there is also Need for added value and providing support for sustainable manufacturing Need systems to promote small farmers Wider use of food safety standards Quotas for fresh food and vegetables in supermarkets Greater local content Improve awareness of the nutrition value Reduce volumes of food with little nutritional value Consider the total cost of food with low nutritional value on the system....government system Promoting and marketing Increasing access to financing and support to assist small holder farmers to mitigate climate impacts and provide health foods to market Partnerships and collaboration across value chain Wider use of permaculture Design for sustainability and resilience Improve engagement and support infrastructure Transport and logistics...….greening the transport system, wider use of sustainable fuels and transport in food system More food cooperatives, pooling resources to enhance value, Improved access to financing and incentives Access to farming lands, connect vulnerable groups to opportunities and access to incentives Crowd funding Innovative sustainable financing Sustainable agriculture as means of building self sufficiency, community food hubs, means of capacity building.....the need for investment in the vulnerable youth Need to identify, mobilize and connect youth to resources and people Greater investment in food sustainability Need to sell agriculture as a viable option Greater use of technology in agriculture Diversification in farming technology to attract and sustain livelihoods and co benefits-.aquaponics-.backyard, commercial, community gardens. Training Development and Capacity Building Connecting and aligning the need to reduce emissions, mitigate and need to address water, energy and waste Connecting sustainable technology to support accelerating sustainable agriculture Providing sustainable financing to help integrate agriculture Research as well.. we need to fund and publish work and IP value that can add to the conversation on how our diets can be supplemented effectively Explore opportunities in salt water agriculture. R&D intro seaweed…..explore need in other markets... Need to control pests236238239240241242243244246*WASTE* *MANAGEMENT* *Facilitator* Desiree Valentine Attorney at Law St. Lucia *Causes* *of* *Wastage* •No proper machinery or proper processing plants •High production cost generates no sake due to product being expensive •Not having enough of what consume WANT & producing too much of what is in low demand •Insufficient support for local produce as opposed to foreign •Interdependence between Caribbean countries / not much collaboration •Individual vs community farming Suggestion that the Caribbean build our own technology Proposed Solutions •Target primary & secondary school children to buy-into the importance of food production / food security •Also public re above note •Address manner in which Agriculture is taught in schools / find new, innovative I formation dissemination methods •Must collaborate with Environmental & Social stakeholders • _Twinning_ - Two countries producing same product can exchange ideas, processes, technology, etc. •Drying & preserving produce that can be •Introduce farm cooking where consumers can purchase a meal made out of daily produce •Form global Network - Integrate systems / technology / processes / KSAs •Need to document & utilize Caribbean Agri studies •Breed new, various varieties of produce SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES & CITY DEVELOPMENT Facilitator Clyde (?) •Farmers in Caribbean not supported •Youths not interested or encouraged •Explore SMART farming/ Organic farming •Get youths involved in group/community farming •Integrate Agri into the school system from primary to secondary level as well as trade schools, as a sustainable core subject & not just an elective •Need community support for students and the general public to engage sustainable behavioral change •Government should get involved in in making land available for Agri on a national level •Suggestion to allocate Agri land in residential areas & other developing communities •Arima has been allocated seven (7) lots for Agri to date •Start at the community level to promote sustainable food production Agriculture is about high technology Use this high technology as a means of pulling youths in237238239240241242246The need for Quotas and Local Content regulations

Press release and additional notes from the discussion groups2021-03-19 23:52:23https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Notes-on-Summary-of-Dialogue-on-Sustainable-and-Resilient-Food-Systems-March-13-2021-1-1.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/FOR-IMMEDIATE-RELEASE-Food-Systems-Summit.docxParticipant feedback ro survey on factors affecting sustainable and resilient food systems2021-03-20 05:47:06https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/IMG-20210318-WA0108.jpg

2021-03-14 05:59:55205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/7025/39

1612318813221106111112

The dialogue was organised and conducted principally by youth in an effort to encourage youth to speak openly and to express their views primarily in discussion with other youth. In introducing the dialogue, respect for one another's different views was stressed as an important principal. Participants were encouraged to allow for disagreement without being disagreeable. The dialogue was expressly organised to encourage stakeholder diversity in the National Dialogue and to promote the engagement and voice of youthAs above, participants encouraged to respect each others views and to give all present the opportunity to speak. The feedback taken by the notetakers accurately and fully reflects the views expressed by the participants.We found youth were active and interested to take part in the dialogue. However, the number of participants was relatively small. We can expand on the outcomes using social media as a mechanism to test the views expressed. Online surveys via social media can test the strength of some of the conclusions with a wider sample of youth.

Yes

234238239240241242251The focus of this youth dialogue was on the same topics as the first engagement event, which were on elaborating a vision for sustainable food systems in Cambodia in 2030 and identifying actions and levers for moving towards the vision.235238239241242246249251The vision is that the food system will provide food security for all Cambodian citizens, ensuring that local markets and local demands are met by local supply. Producing enough food to eat and adequate nutrition for the population, without relying on imports. Food is should be locally produced, following local and cultural practices, and in a sustainable way. People will learn how to eat healthy food and the right amount of food thereby reducing food waste and keeping people healthy. Encourage chemical free, healthy, nutritious, local product by using the efforts of all stakeholders to achieve this vision and to spread these messages. Youth can raise their voices to spread information about the importance of good nutrition and make good use of social media to do so. Mainstream maternal, infant and young children’s needs for food as part of food systems for healthy diets in all circumstances. Target all populations, with more emphasis on women, the elderly, young children, people with disabilities and youth.236238239240242244248249250Topic 1: What is your vision of a sustainable food systems for Cambodia in 2030? Ensure food security for all Cambodian citizens, ensuring that local markets and local demands are met by local supply. Producing enough food to eat and adequate nutrition for the population, without relying on imports. Food is locally produced, following local and cultural practices, and in a sustainable way. People learn how to eat healthy food and the right amount of food. Eating the right amount of food reduces food waste and keeps people healthy. Healthy diets will be included in the school curriculum, especially for young children so they will learn about healthy diets and food systems from a young age. People will continue to raise their own animals and grow their own crops. Farmers are the front line of our food systems, so policy and innovation should benefit their wellbeing. All farmers are affected by climate change and will need support from the government to develop resilience. Improve agricultural production to produce at better standards, improved products and safer and more nutritious food. Protect Cambodian food exports Promote innovation and improved standards for food systems in Cambodia. There should be a chemical free environment for the food system in Cambodia so people can trust food safety. This should be supported by an effective system of Quality Assurance. By 2030, people should be eating more healthy food instead of fast food and junk food. All the food categories (food groups) should be readily available and accessible through markets. Innovation will be an important element of the sustainable food system.236238239240241242244245246248249Q2. WHAT ACTIONS WILL ALLOW US TO REACH OUR VISION Encourage chemical free, healthy, nutritious, local product; Joint efforts by all stakeholders to achieve the vision and to spread these messages. Mainstream maternal, infant and young children’s needs for food as part of food systems for healthy diets in all circumstances. Government has a key role. Government action is needed to ensure existing laws and standards are enforced and people are made aware of these standards and rules. Importers who are bringing in contaminated foods or time expired food should be punished. Review gaps of existing laws and close the loopholes. Identify if any new regulations and laws on foods are required. Establish a government body to build sustainability and systematically conduct quality assurance, monitoring and control of foods and production at all stages, from farm to table. Government actions required to educate farmers and share information to help them diversify production and to reach markets. Agriculture should be included in education so that there is wider understanding of the issues for the population. NGOs can also help to educate the next generation of producers. Build capacity of provincial, district and commune government agricultural extension workers to deliver quality services to the community, by taking food systems for healthy diets as a central point of agricultural activities. Make a law for controlling imported food from neighboring countries and take the law seriously by inspecting all imports. If people can access cheap imported food they will do so. To promote local produce the Government should introduce tariffs or quotas to limit access for foreign food. Be selective so that some imports are allowed to keep balanced relations with neighbors. Bring the price of exports up so that local produce is preferred. Promote value chains by supporting farmers cooperatives and small business clusters and make linkages between producers, sellers and traders. Provide subsidies for producers to improve food quality and nutritious produce. Employ good agricultural practices through government extension services using improved agricultural technologies. Develop a strategy for responding to climate change and resilience to shocks and disasters to ensure food security at all times. Strengthen the focus on small scale processors and use simple practical guidelines appropriate for them. Expand engagement with the private sector for quality food processing and healthy snack food production in response to the growing need of the population at all age groups. Ensure adequate resources, especially better agricultural inputs, such quality vegetable seeds, fertilizers, fish seeds, and irrigation facilities and systems to optimize production. Work with media outlets to intensify public awareness and conduct SBCC activities for food systems and healthy diets. Education and behaviour change regarding food habits. For long term sustainability of the food system, food system for healthy diets should be mainstreamed in the national school curriculum. Youth can raise their voices to spread information about the importance of good nutrition and use social media. Host public forums at national and sub-national level to discuss the importance of food systems for healthy diets, and how systems can be strengthened. Educate people about the importance of local production and to encourage purchase of chemical free produce. Target all populations, with more emphasis on women, the elderly, young children, people with disabilities and youth.237241246249250Although the participants were not aware of the consequences, the protectionist views expressed clash with ASEAN trade policies and WTO. Whilst the participants were keen that Cambodia should enjoy trade privileges for export, they wished to restrict food imports and curb free trade agreements in the interests of producers. The consequences for consumers paying higher prices were not considered in the discussion. Protectionist policies supporting farmers are popular whilst there is a large proportion of the population involved in farming. However the trade off lies in the effects on other sectors, on consumers and on international relations.

2021-03-15 10:52:12205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/7820/95

880538

No・MAFF held the dialogue with stakeholders for developing the new strategy for realizing both the productivity improvement and sustainability through innovation, called “Measures for achievement of Decarbonization and Resilience with Innovation (MeaDRI)”. ・MAFF explained the outline of a draft of MeaDRI to the stakeholders, followed by the expression of views of the stakeholders on challenges and opportunities for sustainable food systems associated with the strategy.

234239240242244248249The expression of views of the stakeholders on challenges and opportunities for sustainable food systems associated with the new strategy, “MeaDRI”.235239240242244248249The main remarks of the participants are as follows. (1) As other industries will make considerable efforts toward 2050 carbon neutral, agriculture sector should also make same efforts. (2) As the decade to 2030 is crucial, innovation needs to be accelerated. (3) In order to promote policies for creating innovation, it is extremely important to steadily promote existing policies, such as the consolidation of agricultural land and the full utilization of paddy fields. (4) In order to make areas of organic agriculture as production areas widely recognized, it is important to secure a certain amount of land through the accumulation and consolidation of farmland so that these areas can be clearly distinguished from conventional farm land. It is important to accelerate the consolidation of agricultural land as a prerequisite for the steady implementation of strategies such as the wide use of drones. (5) Although it is difficult for individual farmers to substitute compost for chemical fertilizers, it is technically possible to recycle them locally. Japan is faced with the problem of excessive nitrogen and phosphate input, and therefore, the establishment of a circular economy, including livestock manure, is necessary. (6) In light of the current efforts for specially cultivated rice, it would be possible to reduce the use of chemical fertilizers by half for paddy rice without having a sense of resistance. (7) While the reduction of chemical pesticides and fertilizers must be dealt with, human and economic burden on farmers is considerably large. We will listen to farmers' opinions and work together. (8) We should set ambitious high targets for 2050 under the assumption that policy recommendations will be realized. (9) If the target is to be 2050, the share of organic agriculture in the arable land area should be around the EU level (25% of arable land).

2021-03-15 11:02:23205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/7841/95

44044

NoMAFF held the dialogue with stakeholders for developing the new strategy for realizing both the productivity improvement and sustainability through innovation, called “Measures for achievement of Decarbonization and Resilience with Innovation (MeaDRI)”. MAFF explained the outline of a draft of MeaDRI to the stakeholders, followed by the expression of views of the stakeholders on challenges and opportunities for sustainable food systems associated with the strategy.

234239240242244248249The expression of views of the stakeholders on challenges and opportunities for sustainable food systems associated with the new strategy, “MeaDRI”.235239240242244248249The main remarks of the participants are as follows. (1) In order to increase the sustainability of agriculture, it is important to establish sustainable management systems that allow farmers to secure sufficient income while considering the environmental impact. (2) It is crucial that, not only producers, but also consumers change their awareness on the environment. In order to significantly change their way of thinking in producing or purchasing, it is necessary to develop the awareness raising as a part of the national movement. (3) When developing new technologies and varieties, more importance should be placed on the environmental perspective than ever before. This idea should be more easily conveyed to farmers so that they can change their way of thinking. (4) Given the serious labor shortage, it is necessary to present concrete models such as labor saving and cost reduction. (5) It is necessary to make concreate “green” policies for maintaining agricultural land and paddy field farming including the expansion of direct payments from the viewpoint of demonstrating multifunctionality and conserving environment. (6) Since the impact on the related industries on the ground is large, it is necessary to support the transformation of the business model while sufficiently exchanging opinions on various issues including procurement issues with stakeholders. (7) Specific numerical targets are necessary. Also, it is necessary to set targets that will allow the stakeholders to work enthusiastically for changing themselves. In addition, it is important to set targets for individual regions and items and indicate specific roadmaps along with technological innovation so that stakeholders on the ground can be convinced to work along with the strategy.

2021-03-15 11:14:13205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/7844/95

6604224

NoMAFF held the dialogue with stakeholders(4 Farmers, 2 Multi-national corporations ) for developing the new strategy for realizing both the productivity improvement and sustainability through innovation, called “Measures for achievement of Decarbonization and Resilience with Innovation (MeaDRI)”. MAFF explained the outline of a draft of MeaDRI to the stakeholders, followed by the expression of views of the stakeholders on challenges and opportunities for sustainable food systems associated with the strategy.

234239240242244248249The expression of views of the stakeholders on challenges and opportunities for sustainable food systems associated with the new strategy, “MeaDRI”.235239240242244248249The main remarks of the participants are as follows. (1) It is important to clearly differentiate roles between machines and people and to consolidate farm fields suitable for smart agricultural machinery. On top of that, it is important to use various smart agriculture technologies on the ground. (2) Due to the increase in scale of farming and the increase in size and efficiency of machines, the current agriculture tends to emphasize more on business than the natural environment. However, considering sustainable agriculture and livelihoods, it is urgent to establish policies to focus on the environmental aspects. (3) In order to promote environment-friendly agriculture, it is crucial that consumers recognize its value. The request from the actual demand directly motivates the producer's efforts.

2021-03-15 11:19:51205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/7847/95

55055

NoMAFF held the dialogue with stakeholders(5 Farmers) for developing the new strategy for realizing both the productivity improvement and sustainability through innovation, called “Measures for achievement of Decarbonization and Resilience with Innovation (MeaDRI)”. MAFF explained the outline of a draft of MeaDRI to the stakeholders, followed by the expression of views of the stakeholders on challenges and opportunities for sustainable food systems associated with the strategy.

234239240242244248249The expression of views of the stakeholders on challenges and opportunities for sustainable food systems associated with the new strategy, “MeaDRI”.235239240242244248249The main remarks of the participants are as follows. (1) It is important to ensure that the global environment remains as good as it can be for the next generation engaging in agriculture. (2) Greenhouse cultivation emits CO₂ by burning fossil fuels during winter heating. It is important to balance in the society as a whole while reducing emissions in agriculture, which is the sink side. Social mechanisms such as emissions credits are also important. (3) The importance of acting from our side is recognized again. It is important to do what we can do by ourselves step by step. (4) In the future, it will be possible for Japan to demonstrate leadership in the field of greenhouse cultivation with zero emissions. (5) In order to further reduce chemical pesticides and chemical fertilizers, it is essential to develop new technologies such as natural enemies available for various crops. (6) To reduce chemical pesticides, technological developments such as resistant varieties, natural enemies, and biostimulants are necessary. (7) There is a need for a policy to promote the carbon capture from local incinerators and their utilization for agriculture. (8) In order to further reduce the use of chemical pesticides, initial control and discovery are important, and surveillance robots and pest detection systems are necessary. (9) It is important to develop infrastructure that enables communication equipment to be used even in rural areas. (10) In order to sustain agriculture, it is necessary to establish a system which evaluates farmers’ efforts as some kind of added value. (11) Production facilities that make use of technology are necessary. However, it is not feasible without a sense of scale to a certain extent in order to set rules and act.

2021-03-15 11:23:39205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/7852/95

54155

NoMAFF held the dialogue with stakeholders(5 Farmers) for developing the new strategy for realizing both the productivity improvement and sustainability through innovation, called “Measures for achievement of Decarbonization and Resilience with Innovation (MeaDRI)”. MAFF explained the outline of a draft of MeaDRI to the stakeholders, followed by the expression of views of the stakeholders on challenges and opportunities for sustainable food systems associated with the strategy.

234239240242244248249The expression of views of the stakeholders on challenges and opportunities for sustainable food systems associated with the new strategy, “MeaDRI”.235239240242244248249The main remarks of the participants are as follows. (1) It is most important to change the consciousness of farmers. Making organic products and specially cultivated agricultural products should not be a burden to farmers. Also, policy makers should not make rules that significantly reduce agricultural productivity. (2) It was felt that the reduction of pesticides and fertilizers did not affect the yield as much as farmers expected. These experiences should be shared with others for the further improvement for the future. (3) The challenge of expanding the area of organic farming in paddy fields is weed control. (4) It is expected to develop the technology which allows farmers to see the state of weeds. (5) Consumers should be able to see producers’ contribution to the reduction of CO2 and the environmental impacts of pesticides. (6) Technological development should not be led by the manufacturer’s capacity. It is necessary to develop technologies which farmers really need from the farmer's perspective. (7) It is important that there is a person at the base of areas who can advise the technologies that suit the area. (8) If there are many uncertainties about profitability, it seems to be difficult to proceed the activities at the production site. (9) The extremely strict regulation is one of the big issues. Therefore, it would be great if the government could introduce something like specified districts more smoothly.

2021-03-15 11:26:42205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/7857/95

44044

NoMAFF held the dialogue with stakeholders(4 Farmers) for developing the new strategy for realizing both the productivity improvement and sustainability through innovation, called “Measures for achievement of Decarbonization and Resilience with Innovation (MeaDRI)”. MAFF explained the outline of a draft of MeaDRI to the stakeholders, followed by the expression of views of the stakeholders on challenges and opportunities for sustainable food systems associated with the strategy.

234239240242244248249The expression of views of the stakeholders on challenges and opportunities for sustainable food systems associated with the new strategy, “MeaDRI”.235239240242244248249The main remarks of the participants are as follows. (1) If it becomes possible to reduce costs by combining infrastructure improvement and agricultural technologies, and reduce chemical pesticides and fertilizers by utilizing robot technologies, we will be able to see the bright future of agriculture. (2) It is difficult to reduce the amount of chemical pesticides use since the current varieties require regular preventive control. (3)　The challenge in reducing chemical pesticides is herbicides. To reduce pesticide, evidence of pesticide use should be verified to high standards, such as European standards. Verification and analysis of pesticides used prophylactically and therapeutically is needed. (4) Since livestock manure is the key to utilizing unused resources, cooperation between farming and livestock sectors should be promoted primarily. (5) Regarding the usage of chemical pesticides and fertilizers, the reduction of chemical pesticides and fertilizers may be facilitated by establishing a mechanism and standards such as GAP (Good Agricultural Practices) and thereby promoting rules. (6) There is also a problem specific to local areas. When pests are found after only one farmer reduced pesticide usage or conducted organic farming in the area, complaints will come to the farmer. In addition, it should be assumed that the pesticides drift issue will occur. (7) In organic farming, connection with consumers and the balance of the ability to produce and sale is important for its continuation. (8) Due to the lack of technical evidence, cooperation between the National Agriculture and Food Research Organization and farmers is very important for innovating. (9) In order to secure a sufficient food supply, it is important to realize sustainable agricultural income and obtain public understanding so that domestically produced food can be selected. (10) Not only the quality of the product itself, but also the quality including the environmental aspect must be evaluated.

2021-03-16 16:09:15204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/3198/203

7170

Dialogue was designed and convened using FSD Principles. Curator and facilitators were previously trained in FSD Principles and had prior experience facilitating other FSDs.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Multiple trends and the global pandemic powerfully influence the food services industry as people seek out prepared foods that are safe, convenient, healthy, delicious and sustainable. Over the years the food services industry has helped influence and enable shifts in the global food system given its buying power, scale of infrastructure and user reach. Today, the business and institutional food services industry (tech, financial services, academia, entertainment, etc) has a sizable opportunity to positively advance the global narrative as well as consequent actions on sustainability, social equality and access to healthy, nutritious food.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Please see FSD Summary Report attachment.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Please see FSD Summary Report attachment.237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Please see FSD Summary Report attachment.

2021-03-18 13:43:40204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/3657/203

4230102152718121173101016110215821417

The BoT organizing team has selected a group of young and motivated individuals already (or ready to be) projected into the realm of food systems and provided them with a safe space to discuss, openly and creatively, the way forward for a more sustainable and resilient future. As such, both the organizing team and the participants understand the need to act with urgency and are committed, either personally or professionally, to contribute to the vision, objectives and outcomes of the FSS. The BoT participants aim to be agents of change and wish to contribute to the outcome of the FSS. David Nabarro’s intervention during the first BoT virtual meeting clearly inspired them and helped them better understand the process behind the Summit. In the organization of the Dialogue, the BoT organizing team made sure to embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity by inviting participants from different countries, backgrounds and sectors, including but not limited to civil society, government, academia and the private sector. It must be pointed out, however, that the Dialogue has been organized and carried out with a focus on the youth and on the Middle Eastern – Mediterranean region geographically speaking. The facilitators selected were all part of the organizing team, and had been briefed with attention to ensure the creation of a safe space conducive for dialogue based on respect and trust. A number of ‘principles’ for discussion were shared with the participants at the beginning of each session to foster this sense of inclusivity, mutual respect and trust. These included the need to complement the work of others, build on what the person before has said, challenge only when you have an alternative to propose, and finally seek compromise in order to reach a unifying message.The Dialogue focused on the relationship between food and health and on the plausibility of moving towards personalized diets, within specific contexts, in the future. The Dialogue is part of a broader set of workshops and events organized by the Bites of Transfoodmation team that aim to take into account and discuss different aspects of the food systems, thus recognizing their complexity. Previous dialogues and workshops have focused on the topics of sustainable consumption and on the future of production, transformation and distribution. The final aim is to achieve a political intention of the group, in the form of a Manifesto and Lines of Action, which will take a holistic and systemic approach to food systems transformation. Yet, as the very name Bites of Transfoodmation suggests, the idea is to propose some ‘bites’ of change which are coherent to and reflect the vision of the group of young change-makers and the themes identified by the group as key. The principles of inclusivity, respect and trust were reflected in the design and roll-out of the Dialogue and have been an essential feature of the entire Bites of Transfoodmation process. The participants have not only been included in all stages of the project in a transparent and inclusive way but have been its very center. A real sense of trust has been created along the way, and this could be witnessed during the Dialogue as the participants felt they could express their views freely and openly, even when these did not necessarily reflect the views held by others. The Bites of Transfoodmation organizing team has received a lot of positive feedback from the group and is looking forward to the next Dialogue, which will take place on March 16th.Thanks to the fact that there is a team working exclusively on the Bites of Transfoodmation project, a lot of information and knowledge sharing is able to take place both among the participants, and between the participants and the organizing team. The organizing team has ensured that various different avenues and spaces for exchange are created, both during and in the build-up to the Dialogues. This has definitely contributed to building trust as well as to keeping the momentum, engagement and commitment of the participants high. Our advice to other Convenors would be to make sure, if possible, that there is a strong point of contact between the Dialogue participants and the Convenors. This allows for participant's feedback and continued interaction after the workshops and Dialogue so that the ideas can be further refined, and knowledge further shared. Furthermore, it seems to be a valuable approach to choose participants with a diverse background in order to permit exchange about different realities, while working towards compromise and unifying elements.

Yes

234238239241242243244246247248249250251Our first three Bites of Transfoodmation workshops showed us the need for a change of narrative, with a greater emphasis on espousing diversity, whilst nurturing a culture of empowerment, reconsidering our habitats and reassessing the value of food through the lens of a true cost approach. We acknowledged that shifting the status of food from a commodity to a public good can help in contemplating its true cost and value and we recognized that a new perspective in the way to produce, process and distribute food, orientated towards achieving healthy and sustainable diets for all, will lead to profound systemic changes. Existing inequalities both in terms of access to knowledge and income often result in affordability and accessibility issues. During this Independent Dialogue, zoomed in on the points of difference within our social fabric. We embraced three cases of what we could define as extreme habitats (refugee camps, the realities of oncology, and high performing sports) that allowed us to dive deeper into the topics of inequality and accessibility and therefore to have an inclusive conversation, truly embracing diversity. The discussion was focused around three main questions/discussion topics: a) How could food systems and health systems be brought together to reduce the social and economic cost of illness? Should health and food be conceived as public goods? If yes, how? b) How can we get to a point in which everyone has access to a diet tailored to his/her specific needs as some athletes currently do? c) In a context of increasing migration flows due to climate change and political instability, how can we ensure healthy and sustainable food systems that allow for nutritious food and a thriving social fabric?235238239240241242243244246247248249250251By pushing a bit further the margins of non-mainstreamed food systems, we noticed that what emerged quite strongly was a divisive tendency with a focus on what divides rather than what unifies us as a group. It is clear, that in order to embrace the unifying power of food, we need to spell out the granularity of the unifying message of potentially divisive concepts. From the discussion, it came out clearly that diversity, which is perceived as a positive element, is countered by confusion. How can we make a choice that is sustainable both in economic and environmental terms in such a diversified context? This confusion leads to another potential opposition between personal responsibility and collectivity rights related to food habits in the future. This contrast can be linked to the dichotomy between the narratives (perceived as the truth) versus the trends (perceived as something of the moment). The example of the refugee camp in Jordan, revealed the power of traditions and the fear of losing identities. Traditions, and food traditions in particular, were perceived as nourishing a sense of belonging, as one of the only things that make you feel like a human being anchored in a societal environment. On the contrary, innovation and personalized diets were considered as a mere response to health necessities, somehow taking away the human and social part of nutrition, and therefore the pleasure and celebration of food. Within the group, we felt a feeling of opposition between the social and health elements of food. Potentially we can overcome it and have both. We need to dismantle these dichotomies to build our Manifesto as diversity does not imply confusion and fear, but rather the opposite. When exploited in a positive way, food has a unifying power that works as a vector enacting a virtuous cycle of who we are, what we do and our sense of belonging. This implies new traditions, a new concept of sustainability and affordability (in its broad definition) and social proximity. The day that we will be collectively able to bring diversity as a fundamental aspect of belonging will imply the creation of a new narrative in the shape of a clepsydra. Diversity will be the unifying factor and the narrative won’t imply a homogenization of diversity but will rather embrace it as a source of richness. This will imply the establishment of trust through an empowering culture. In this narrative, we want new traditions that allow the creation a new sense of belonging. How can we get there? By embedding the issue of personalized diets and food in its broad definition encompassing social and health dimensions. The outcome will be a narrative that embraces, learns, joins, celebrates diverse new food traditions for cohesive, healthy, sustainable habitats where we all live and thrive.236238239241246250We all know that food is crucial to perform at our best in certain activities, such as sports. As, in this case, the main objective is to get to the best possible result, the customization of the diet is at the basis. But what if all of us followed a personalized diet with the goal of living a healthy life, without nutrient deficiencies and the risk of running out of food? Surely it would work at the health level, but there are still questions that need to be looked into at the applicability level. In fact, we are not only talking about health but also about wellness, as a personalized diet would have to be at the same time healthy and appetizing. Following this reasoning, how would a family with different diets manage the time and would it be sustainable in terms of waste? Who should tell us what our specific needs are? How could governments help in promoting the consumption of healthy products? A possible way would be to implement specific subsides both for consumers and producers and build up specific healthcare institutions. Healthy food should become a matter of public interest in order to make it work economically and start to have an influence on the whole food system.236238239246249250Food is closely related to health and in some cases it turns out to be the only cure. Very often this characteristic is not considered and food is taken for granted, undermining the fundamental role it plays for our health. This has led to an increase in the costs of health related to the consumption of cheap processed food, which is not good for human health. Knowledge and education are needed in all sectors to make food become a public and social good, thus giving back its true value. However, it has emerged that in the context of the current food systems it is still too complex to take a holistic approach permitting this new vision of food. In addition, an important role is also played by the image attributed to food: It would be suitable to present a positive image, leading to a shared awareness and, above all, to both an individual and a collective responsibility. We should also try to see food as a nourishment of the mind and be able to make free personal choices based on awareness and knowledge, without getting overwhelmed by the confusion due to the huge offer of choices which characterizes the current world narratives.236238239240241242244246247248249250251Food is an important part of people's lives, cultures and traditions and can be seen as a powerful unifying force helping to create a sense of belonging within communities. This is also the case in refugee camps and more generally amongst people on the move, for that context food plays a central role in bringing people together and maintaining traditions alive. It is often, however, the case that food aid and assistance in these contexts privileges food quantity over food quality, and that the food delivered does not take into account cultural sensitivities. This could be due to the fact that refugee camps are seen as temporary solutions, although in reality these situations are increasingly spanning over a longer period of time. One solution could be to start projects which create urban food systems, through techniques such as vertical farming and hydroponics, within the contexts of refugee camps. In this way, migrants and refugees would have access to job opportunities as well as quality food, re-gaining agency and independence over their food choices as well as having the possibility to share their own knowledge and help to create a thriving social fabric. Food can, in fact, be a powerful linking factor between local communities and migrants, creating a new food culture bringing together different, multicultural communities and traditions. Food has both social and health elements and both are important; food can be seen as necessary for human nutrition but also as a celebration. In the context of migration, both elements should be taken into account to ensure that migrants and refugees have access to a healthy and nutritious diet, whilst at the same time being able to celebrate food traditions and to create new ones.237238239240241242244246247248249250251Compared to the previous Bites of Transfoodmation workshops, during this Independent Dialogue, some stronger areas of divergence came out within and amongst the discussion groups. Particularly, participants highlighted some critical areas of divergence that involve difficult trade-offs for the following aspects: a) The question of how we could attribute the true value of food including people's perception and public subsidies. b) A tension in the definition of the terms: "healthy diets" and "personalized diets", how they should be determined and by whom. Participants had different understandings on the definition of these two expressions with stricter interpretations implying new technologies and DNA editing on the one side, and much larger interpretations implying eating what makes you feel good on the other. c) The trade-off between tailored diets and its implication or interference with the personalized diets of others and the costs both in economic and environmental terms that such diets could have. d) Within the group, we felt a feeling of opposition between the social and health elements of food. Innovation and personalized diets were considered by some participants as a mere response to health necessities, somehow taking away the human and social part of nutrition, and therefore the celebration of food and its anchorage to cultural narratives and traditions. e) The risk of over-romanticize the "celebrative power" of food, as for participants food - in some some circumstances -can be a source of conflicts (when it is limited) and of mental stress with a particular focus on eating disorders such as anorexia and bulimia. f) When talking about the social and health aspects of food, and the prospect of moving towards more personalized diets in the future, the topic of pills (i.e. vitamins, supplements, etc.) came up. Some of the participants highlighted that pills were not the solution nor were desirable, as food is strongly linked to culture and traditions. Other participants, however, stressed that this is fast becoming a reality for industries and companies are investing in it. g) Some participants suggested the idea to associate strict personalized diets (as the one adopted by professional athletes for example) with some sorts of rewards in the form of "cheat meals". However, others stressed out the idea that "cheat meals" can be perceived as a punishment and could therefore increase some negative consequences for mental and physical health (feelings of guilt). Furthermore, many pointed out that a "cheat meal" should not be necessary, as we should be eating food we like every day in a balanced way. No clear answers have been identified to address these challenges, however there has been consensus that we, as a group, have the power to overcome these dichotomies between the social and health elements of food, between personal choices and sense of collectivity and between personalized diets and environmentally and economically sustainable diets. We need to dismantle these dicothomies to build our Bites of Transfoodmation Manifesto as diversity does not imply confusion and fear, but rather the opposite.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/clepsydra-narrative.pnghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/The-unifying-power-of-food.pnghttps://transfoodmation.com/

2021-03-19 11:52:47204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/7356/91

4336439340

The moderator explained the Food Systems Summit and the importance of youth engagement with the food systems. Each speaker spoke about the importance of sustainable food system for students and we encouraged participants to get involved in discussion and send us feedback in the chat box and during the Q&A session.We encouraged open conversation between the panelists and participants, which resulted in respectful discussion and highlighted that students have the similar opinions and needs no matter where they are in the world. We had diverse participants and a gender balanced panel creating an inclusive dialogue.Having a diverse panel and/or participants (eg. age, background, gender, occupations, etc) will encourage new people to get involved in food systems dialogues.

Yes

234238245246247250251The main focus of our dialogue was to highlight the the importance of food security for students and discuss the problems associated along with solutions. Students have a reputation for struggling to afford nutritious food but through initiatives there has been small progress. We wanted to begin an open discussion between students who are working on grassroots initiatives and leaders and decision makers in the field of global food security to create a food security environment for university students.235238243245246247249250251- Empowering youth and including young voices of people who are working in grassroots projects is so important to get different perspectives on student food insecurity and of students who have suffered from food insecurity. - Hunger will only be solved through the collective action of students form all backgrounds, there needs to be a collective engagement between all members of the university community to create student food security. - There is a lack of affordable nutritious food available on campus for students and action needs to be take on this matter. - The point was reiterated that students should not have to make trade-offs between food and education. The responsibility of a student’s next meal should not be put on the shoulders of another student. - Food security should not be viewed as an individual issue, there is ripple effect that comes with a continues lack of nutritious food including mental health, physical health, university grades etc. - There are a number of initiatives on UCC campus helping students struggling with food, including food banks and now with covid, food vouchers, but when working on solutions we must ensure that not only are gaps plugged but that there is not a need for these food banks or initiatives in the first hand. - Food security needs a holistic food perspective with bottom-up and top-down action. Macro-economic policies need to be created at a university and national level to support the most vulnerable on campus.237238There was universal support from all panelists and attendees that work is needed to create a more food secure campus for students.

2021-03-22 10:58:46205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/8573/95

55055

NoMAFF held the dialogue with stakeholders(5 Farmers) for developing the new strategy for realizing both the productivity improvement and sustainability through innovation, called “Measures for achievement of Decarbonization and Resilience with Innovation (MeaDRI)”. MAFF explained the outline of a draft of MeaDRI to the stakeholders, followed by the expression of views of the stakeholders on challenges and opportunities for sustainable food systems associated with the strategy.

234239240242244248249The expression of views of the stakeholders on challenges and opportunities for sustainable food systems associated with the new strategy, “MeaDRI”.235239240242244248249The main remarks of the participants are as follows. (1) One of the reasons why organic livestock production does not increase in Japan is the difficulty in securing feed for the organic livestock production. (2) Consumption is the bottleneck to expanding organic area. Affordable price is the challenge to expanding consumption. It is difficult to increase consumption unless the price gap is bridged. (3) The automatic steering of GPS is an effective ICT tool for organic dairy farming. By using this, the labor is reduced, and the yield and work accuracy are improved. (4) Using smart farming for locating cattle on a large pasture has enabled to identify cattle position immediately, resulting in considerable time savings, although it is quite expensive now. (5) It is important that the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries and the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology work together to provide education that will urge the children of the next generation to think about the current situation and future. (6) It is difficult in hilly and mountainous areas to use land with limited human resources and to improve efficiency. (7) It is effective to create a compost center as a base where cow dung, pig dung, chicken dung, etc., are mixed and to create a mechanism that allows livestock farmers to spray them in agricultural fields for value.

2021-03-22 11:02:24205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/8576/95

51455

NoMAFF held the dialogue with stakeholders (5 Farmers) for developing the new strategy for realizing both the productivity improvement and sustainability through innovation, called “Measures for achievement of Decarbonization and Resilience with Innovation (MeaDRI)”. MAFF explained the outline of a draft of MeaDRI to the stakeholders, followed by the expression of views of the stakeholders on challenges and opportunities for sustainable food systems associated with the strategy.

234239240242244248249The expression of views of the stakeholders on challenges and opportunities for sustainable food systems associated with the new strategy, “MeaDRI”.235239240242244248249The main remarks of the participants are as follows. (1) Development of materials to replace chemical pesticides and development of pesticides with low toxicity should be promoted. (2) It is difficult for family-owned businesses to purchase the automatic mowing robot. Therefore, it is desirable that a mechanism such as an sharing system be put in place. (3) Pest control works should be mechanized because it requires manual labor and is a tough task for the elderly. (4) The technology of embedding fertilizer directly deep in the soil by using machine makes it possible to utilize the active ingredients that otherwise evaporate into the air as a cause of greenhouse gases. These machines should be subsidized. (5) Producers should be informed and educated while making clear which pesticides should be reduced as a priority. (6) It seems that by establishing regulations to reduce chemical pesticides, technological evolution will occur and people's way of thinking will change. (7) To significantly reduce chemical pesticides nationwide, we must change the awareness and knowledge of farmers who practice conventional cultivation. In this regard, if we introduce a system for farmers who work on pesticide-reduced cultivation with income insurance, it will help the progress toward to the chemical pesticide reduction. (8) It would be desirable to create organic farming standards unique to Japan and a new system of using materials which replace chemical pesticides. (9) New technologies such as the development of bovine breeding and feed for inhibiting generation of methane gas should be developed. (10) It is necessary for producers themselves to proactively disseminate information to foster consumers' understanding of additional costs for sustainable production.

2021-03-22 11:06:33205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/8106/95

3333

NoMAFF held the dialogue with stakeholders for developing the new strategy for realizing both the productivity improvement and sustainability through innovation, called “Measures for achievement of Decarbonization and Resilience with Innovation (MeaDRI)”. MAFF explained the outline of a draft of MeaDRI to the stakeholders, followed by the expression of views of the stakeholders on challenges and opportunities for sustainable food systems associated with the strategy.

234239240242244245248249The expression of views of the stakeholders on challenges and opportunities for sustainable food systems associated with the new strategy, “MeaDRI”.235239240242244245248249The main remarks of the participants are as follows. (1) It is necessary to recognize that while agriculture, forestry and fisheries are essential industries that produce food, they also place a burden on the global environment. (2) One of the current challenges of investments and loans for the domestic agriculture, forestry and fisheries industry is that most of them are not necessarily for environmentally friendly industry and, therefore, these are not recognized as ESG investment. We recognize that it is the role of finance to facilitate the transition towards environmentally friendly industries. (3) In some cases, the requirements for ESG investment and loans include obtaining external certification, clarifying the use of funds, and measuring the impact. Therefore, in order to increase ESG investment and loans for domestic agriculture, forestry, and fisheries, it is important to deal with the issues associated with the definition and certification of environment-friendly agriculture, forestry and fisheries. (4) There are two possible means of promoting a shift towards an environmentally friendly agriculture, forestry and fisheries: restricting loans through negative screening of non-environmentally friendly borrowers and providing incentives to environmentally friendly borrowers. However, neither of them is easy. (5) It is important to properly explain to consumers where and what kind of load is placed in the value chain. Regarding "safety and security," we need a concept that is easy for consumers to understand, such as an index of friendliness to the global environment.

2021-03-22 11:11:44205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/8108/95

12120111111

NoMAFF held the dialogue with stakeholders for developing the new strategy for realizing both the productivity improvement and sustainability through innovation, called “Measures for achievement of Decarbonization and Resilience with Innovation (MeaDRI)”. MAFF explained the outline of a draft of MeaDRI to the stakeholders, followed by the expression of views of the stakeholders on challenges and opportunities for sustainable food systems associated with the strategy.

234239240242244248249The expression of views of the stakeholders on challenges and opportunities for sustainable food systems associated with the new strategy, “MeaDRI”.235239240242244248249The main remarks of the participants are as follows. (1) With regard to zero emission of agricultural machinery, there are various technologies such as utilization of hydrogen, biofuel, and e-fuel as well as electrification. It is important to address the zero-emission issue by adopting these technologies in parallel, taking account of these characteristics. (2) Currently, there is a technique for fertilizing and controlling pests based on the growth conditions of crops obtained from yield monitoring combine and aerial photography of drones. By utilizing these technologies and spraying the required amount where necessary and the amount of fertilizers and pesticides used can be reduced to the minimum necessary. These technologies should be further developed. (3) Technology should be developed for establishing energy system based on local food production and consumption utilizing unused resources. (4) Agricultural machinery manufacturers recognize that it takes time to confirm the positive effects of new technologies. Given this, it is important for farmers, the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, and manufacturers to collaborate together to speed up the verification tests of the technologies. (5) Organic fertilizers are inferior to chemical fertilizers in terms of effectiveness and, therefore, it is needed to spray them in large quantities compared to chemical fertilizers. In addition, organic fertilizers are sometimes not suitable for machine spraying because their hardness is soft. Therefore, it is necessary to improve both organic fertilizers and machines so that organic fertilizers can be sprayed by using machines.

2021-03-22 11:17:22205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/8110/95

66066

NoMAFF held the dialogue with stakeholders for developing the new strategy for realizing both the productivity improvement and sustainability through innovation, called “Measures for achievement of Decarbonization and Resilience with Innovation (MeaDRI)”. MAFF explained the outline of a draft of MeaDRI to the stakeholders, followed by the expression of views of the stakeholders on challenges and opportunities for sustainable food systems associated with the strategy.

234239240242244248249The expression of views of the stakeholders on challenges and opportunities for sustainable food systems associated with the new strategy, “MeaDRI”.235239240242244248249The main remarks of the participants are as follows. (1) Social concerns in carbon neutrality and environmental protection has significantly risen in recent years. Given this situation, it is important for the pesticide manufacturers to tackle this issue by changing their awareness. (2) In addition to developing chemical pesticides with less environmental burden, it is important to focus on developing biological pesticides and biostimulants. (3) It is important to contribute to the reduction of environmental burden by further developing the technology of coating seeds with pesticides and the spraying technology using drones at the production site. (4) Since CO2 is generated when pesticides are manufactured and distributed, it is necessary to proceed with development with carbon neutrality in mind, such as reducing the weight and size of the formulation. (5) Compared to Europe and the United States, Japan's agricultural fields are small where many types of agricultural products are cultivated. In addition, due to the different climate conditions, the pressure from pests and diseases is high. It is necessary to recognize these different characteristics in Japan. (6) It is desirable that the innovations suitable for the Asian monsoon region are established, and then the government take the leadership and disseminate them to Asia. (7) In the future, by further introducing disease-resistant varieties, improving the accuracy of pest forecasting, and utilizing digital technology and smart agricultural technology, it will be possible to spray pesticides in a timely and appropriate amount, and thereby the amount of pesticides usage may be reduced to some extent. (8) It takes time and cost to develop chemical pesticides and new technologies associated pesticides. It also takes time and costs for farmers to introduce new technologies into the field. It is important for the government to support these activities so that these new chemical pesticides and new technologies can be used on the ground.

2021-03-22 11:22:57205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/8589/95

65133123

NoMAFF held the dialogue with stakeholders s (including 3 Farmers) for developing the new strategy for realizing both the productivity improvement and sustainability through innovation, called “Measures for achievement of Decarbonization and Resilience with Innovation (MeaDRI)”. MAFF explained the outline of a draft of MeaDRI to the stakeholders, followed by the expression of views of the stakeholders on challenges and opportunities for sustainable food systems associated with the strategy.

234239240242244248249The expression of views of the stakeholders on challenges and opportunities for sustainable food systems associated with the new strategy, “MeaDRI”.235239240242244248249The main remarks of the participants are as follows. (1)In Japan, which has different climates and environmental conditions, it is difficult to expand organic farming in grasslands and drylands as in other countries. (2) Although the production technology of organic farming has been almost established, the social environment is still insufficient, which is associated with logistics, distribution of agricultural land, pesticide drift, etc. (3) In order to expand organic farming, it is necessary to first create standards such as a 70% reduction in chemically synthesized materials and thereby attract more farmer to organic farming. (4) From mass production and mass consumption, the balance of supply and demand should be adjusted by appropriate production and consumption that incorporates smart agriculture. (5) Many customers are interested not only in organic products but also in sustainable procurement such as fair trade, FSC and MSC. (6) In expanding the market, it is important to increase the opportunities of seeing the organic agricultural products and create an enabling environment where those products can be purchased on a daily basis. (7) The reason why organic JAS (Japanese Agricultural Standards) certification has not been widespread is that while all costs are paid by the producers and they have to be inspected every year, which is costly, there is no guarantee that these organic products can be sold at a price commensurate with the cost.

2021-03-25 00:29:52204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/2970/94203

571831442531145222521210532121013251332512

The principles were included in the design and formulation of the team and in the mobilization of the participants, The dialogues was jointly organized by the Impact Youth Sustainability Jamaica Limited, Jamaica Network of Rural Women Producers, The University of the West Indies, Members of the Scientific Community, Staff of the BSJ. and a cadre of private sector companies that work in and closely with the food sector Participants were mobilized from all stakeholders The messages of the principles were shared and reinforced with all facilitators. On the day of the dialogue the principles were also incorporated in the execution and guided all facilitators, and panelist in their framing remarks and in the engagement processThe dialogue reflected the principles in its design, mobilization and its conduct. The dialogue facilitators applied Chatham House rules, assured everyone had a chance to speak freely without attribution, gave everyone a chance to speak, mechanically divided participants into their discussion groups and foster an environment of trust, openness and space to freely share different views without beratingAssign co facilitators in case of technology failures be flexible Use polls as a filler while establishing the groups Keep Framing remarks short and to the point Communicate intent and objectives of the dialogue Use dialogue as a basis to move from participation to partnerships Establish whats app group of organizers Start Testing Technology at least one hour before Welcome all participants by Chat and by voice Allow opportunity for participants to provide additional insights after plenary Keep rooms to eight. If beyond start opening another group. Always have two additional facilitators present Have information on opportunities that can help advance the work of the farmers on hand to share

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246248249250251The focus of the dialogue was a systemic exploration of regional food systems under the theme pathways to a sustainable and resilient food system. Participants examined ways to include more women, youth and vulnerable groups in the food system, financing sustainable low carbon food production and innovation, maintaining and sustaining supply chains, accelerating climate smart and resilient agriculture and addressing issues in the food, water, waste, energy and connectivity nexus.2352382392402412422432442452462482492502511. A systems approach to the food system and its supply chain is an imperative 2. More flexible innovative financing systems with modified systems of risk management, coaching and technical support is needed 3. There is need to examine the processes/bureaucracy involved in climate smart financing and develop investment regimes more aligned to SDGs that do not simply copy and paste traditional risk models and regimes of the banking sector 4. There is need to position financing regimes to better align and accelerate action on global goals and to better account for the risk in not taking action on climate risk. Reparation should also be aligned to discyssion and need to develop sustainable and resilient food systems 5. We not using what we have (natural resources). Make use of our natural resources. Use solar energy and reserve energy for other things. There is a need to invest in and support greater deployment of energy and water efficiency technology. Global funds and grants should target and support investments that address the nexus The circular economy models and principles and opportunities will be critical in navigating and addressing issues across the nexus, It would be critical to address need to reduce emissions, the need to address soil health, food and to assure that waste is managed in a more regenerative, sustainable and appropriate way. Food waste provides many opportunities for circularity and should also be a focus of investment A significant emphasis should be placed on regenerative agriculture techniques, agro forestry and generating the data on the carbon sequestered from trees in agroforestry projects that promote the reforestation of indigenous trees and the conservation of indigenous species and biodiversity. Nature based climate solutions will be critical to protection of water ways, reduction of carbon and conservation of water and energy Connectivity should also looked at as a sustainability issue and the impacts of e-waste on the food system should There is need for standing regional, national standing committees and working groups focussed on addressing the ongoing issues arising from the NEXUS and there should be flexible pathways for accessing financing to address these nexus issues Stronger action to protect natural waterways and governance of the commons (rivers, seas and other aspects of the natural environment) is needed and mechanisms for improved and sustained governance need to be implemented that support we need nature based, biological, engineered, hybrid and semi engineered solutions that help to reduce emissions in the design and the various assets and all stakeholders need to work together to protect and engage in asset management There are many opportunities in the nexus to develop sustainable livelihoods. Addressing issues in the nexus would support climate mitigation, adaptation, community resilience and building social cohesion We need to design partnerships that are deeper and more profound than participation. We need to evolve mere citizen, CSO and private sector participation from one off events to ongoing entrenchment into the decision making fabric and process at national regional international. There is a need for new platforms and fora to examine these issues with different lens and flexible arrangements to impact on communities. We must find ways to allow communities to influence sustainable actions that affect their lives There is need for an increase focus in agroforestry, as the practice reduces water utilization and improves yields whilst using less energy from utilities Wider use of urban farming techniques that build on the circular economy concepts and models in water, energy and waste utilization. An increasing emphasis on green infrastructure, eco building design and utilizing eco friendly construction can help connect city development, energy conservation, water conservation and improved waste disposal etc There is need to accelerate national, and regional action on standards for small and sustainable cities and communities such as ISO, LEED, Living Building, IWA and others promoting eco design concepts that integrate and promote greater use and application of integrated designs that manage the interaction in the food, water, waste, energy and connectivity nexus. There is a need to establish national and regional coalitions and partnerships that promote and implement actions on these standards There is a need to develop a national and regional, informal and formal, systems/mechanisms/processes that support ongoing engagement and partnerships of interested parties such as CSO, academia, private sector , international donors, national and local governments in planning, implementing, studying and improving actions, interactions and impacts236238239240241242243244245246248249250251Find in attached document236238239240241242245246248250251Find attached document236238241242243244247Maintaining and Enhancing Sustainable Supply Chains. Conversation topics: 1. There is need to look at the supply chain as a system for now and the future. We spoke about all the actors in a supply chain their financial capabilities and business continuity. There is need to develop support systems that improves resilience and business continuity in SME capacity to manage supply chains, Helping SMEs apply international standards especially related to traceability of raw materials is critical. Funding should support farmers, SMEs in developing low carbon supply chains and also help in their efforts to apply standards that improve their resilience and continuity 2. The role of middle men and their impacts on the supply chain needs to be further assessed. Do they actually help and hurt the small holder farmers? Consumers? and the System? 3. There is a need to engage in ongoing systematic assessment supply chain issues by key stakeholders together. Formal collaborative mechanisms that improve analytic capabilities, risk management and mitigation across the supply chain and food systems will make a difference 4. There is a need for processors/manufacturer to evaluate their inputs, consider replacing foreign inputs where practicable and consider shorter/regional shipping lanes 5. There is a need to build small holder farmers capacity to engage in contract farming 6. There is need to support farmers and processors to develop a culture of quality assurance, record keeping and traceability standards 7. There is need to develop capacity among actors in chain to see the value chain as a system and improve the interactions within 8.Consideration should be given to temporarily stopping the import of fruits vegetables and foods that we could create effective supply chains for 1 group of products at a time. This would ensure we build local capacity (we understood that effort must also be put in by every actor along that supply chain to make sure it becomes effective as was done with chicken in Trinidad) 9. Creating a school program where the culture surrounding each of the different fruits and vegetables and how they are used in different islands. We understood how it could help create a future generation that could take advantage of the local vegetation by creating useful products. We want to create a system where some would be encouraged in the school feeding programs, but also the curriculum included teaching about the vegetation. Develop a procurement regime that gives preference to local and regional supply chain 10. Creating a body that would be able to work on behalf of all actors in a supply chain 1 supply chain at a time for example an inter island coconut supply chain body. Sharing of information and education along the supply chains is key. We proposed a public private partnership that could help to share that training, information, security and advocacy. This would also help to encourage proper farming by contract that would sustain the needs of hoteliers and other purchasers while protecting farmers from the middle men. There were broader conversations about regulation of the middle men... but the supply chain organization that had an element of public private partnership that would share information along the supply chain re prices, amount planted etc. to ensure the prices are amicable and sustainable for farmers and other actors along the supply chain. 11. Education and training was seen as the key way to improve the supply chain along with sharing information and communication. Technology can be leveraged across supply chain236238239240241242243244245246249250251Improving water conservation through watershed management, better use of irrigation equipment and educational programs. Improving animal health and welfare through strategic breeding and selection, practicing integrated farming systems, implementing the use of bio gas digesters on slurry type waste farms and using precision nutrition and feeding strategies to lower emissions. Improving on soil health and focusing on the beneficial microbial populations and their synergy to impact the entire environment. Improving and updating existing policies on plant and animal wildlife conservation strategies as a means of supporting a healthier and more natural environment through biodiversity. Improving data management systems and information sharing systems to ensure a fair and up to date flow of research for all agriculture stakeholders. This initiative also stimulates much beneficial dialogue and provides feedback to focus on relevant areas of research and development. Improving on biomass conversion, sustainable waste management and investing in energy efficient technologies to lower the total dependency on commercial monopoly type energy sources. Improving on the research and information of agrometeorological work done by several organisations to increase the chances of healthier food production, less wastage and a higher chance of managing climate risks in agriculture. Improving on the genetic selection of higher producing varieties of crops and breeds of livestock, to ensure more nutritious food, as well as relating these techniques to more conservation type agriculture techniques.236238239240241242243244245246248249250GROUP 5 – Notes Food waste is a global problem. If crops do not meet some idealized standard, then food gets left behind. How do we change perception of consumers and just take food and turn into something wholesome to eat. Food waste contributes to significant emissions and achieving net zero requires a priority focus and attention be given to food waste and its treatment In the Caribbean food waste different. In the region we do have waste as we have seasonal food. We need to find ways to conserve that waste. We need to market and change our indigenous populations’ perception on locally grown food. This should solve some of the issues. We can be successful if we do. Greater intra-island participation to reduce waste, to assist with islands that don’t have the land space. Designate certain islands/caricom states to be food baskets. Have a regional standard in terms of food, so that there are no problems in terms of intra-island importation/exportation. Reduce imports of foreign fruits and promote locally grown substitutes. Question: Water-Energy-Food Nexus is about the interconnectivity of these systems. All of these systems are finite. How you think we can deal with the challenge of finite resources? What are some strategies on an individual, local, regional level? Resource harvesting - there should be no issue as it relates to lack of water. It is inconceivable that islands have to import water. We are not using technology to harness and harvest resources. We need to make use of more technology. Water harvesting is a key issue as such. In relation, we need to do more with less. Vertical farming with high rise is a solution to limited land space. Butterfly and bees harvesting is a possible solution. SITAM is the way forward. We not using what we have (natural resources). Make use of our natural resources. Use solar energy and reserve energy for other things. There is a need to invest in and support greater deployment of energy and water efficiency technology. Global funds and grants should target and support investments that address the nexus The circular economy models and principles and opportunities will be critical in navigating and addressing issues across the nexus, It would be critical to address need to reduce emissions, the need to address soil health, food and to assure that waste is managed in a more regenerative, sustainable and appropriate way. Food waste provides many opportunities for circularity and should also be a focus of investment A significant emphasis should be placed on regenerative agriculture techniques, agro forestry and generating the data on the carbon sequestered from trees in agroforestry projects that promote the reforestation of indigenous trees and the conservation of indigenous species and biodiversity. Nature based climate solutions will be critical to protection of water ways, reduction of carbon and conservation of water and energy Connectivity should also looked at as a sustainability issue and the impacts of e-waste on the food system should There is need for standing regional, national standing committees and working groups focussed on addressing the ongoing issues arising from the NEXUS and there should be flexible pathways for accessing financing to address these nexus issues Find Notes Attached237242245249Further exploration of the need for middle men in the supply chain ways of determining fair compensation of farmers Temporarily stopping the import of fruits vegetables and foods that we could create effective supply chains for 1 group of products at a time. This would ensure we build local capacity (we understood that effort must also be put in by every actor along that supply chain to make sure it becomes effective as was done with chicken in Trinidad). Protectionist policies may affect other critical partners ability to eradicate poverty and achieve SDG. Such practices need to be carefully analyzed for their systemic effects on Nations and the region

2021-03-25 20:41:38https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Notes-on-Group-Discussions-in-UN-Food-Systems-Summit-Independent-Dialogue-Pathways-to-Sustainable-and-Resilient-Food-Systems-2-1-2-1-adjusted.pdf

2021-03-28 21:27:49204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/8856/203

9183181223722593225123111

The dialogue was organized through Zoom meeting. During, the meeting the Moderator muted the mic of all participants except the participant that was requested to give his or her presentation. Each speaker was allowed to share their opinion and enough time was reserved for questions and contributions among participants. The contributions of all the participants were welcomed and questions addressed satisfactorily.The dialogue reflected each aspect of the outlined principles as follow: 1. Act with urgency; Being aware of the importance of the food system summit and the goal of reaching SDG 9 of industry, innovation and infrastructure by 2030, the Dialogue developed series of answers that will provide innovative approaches to having an improved food system and achieving the SDG 9. 2. Be respectful: The views of every participant from different regions and from different backgrounds were all respected, despite their cultures. Every context were evaluated to reach a better conclusion. 3. Recognize complexity: The Dialogue recognized that food systems are complex and also interconnected with other systems. Hence, it allowed the opportunity to consider other aspects in answering the questions 4. Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity: Stakeholders like small scale farmers and large scale farmers (who require reliable means to acquire agro inputs as well buyers of farm produce) and ICT experts who supplied answers to their question were all invited. Opinions from Individuals from various communities were also embraced to reach a better agreement on the outcomes. 5. Complement the work of others: The Dialogue was hosted to benefit from an existing innovation (ICT) that has not being fully utilized by most farmers in Africa. It complements the innovations already existing in information and technology sector and seeks to leverage on its tools for better food system as well as achieving SDG 9. 6. Build trust: This dialogue allowed opportunity for everyone to participate irrespective of gender, allowing mutual respect and trust. It is transparent, evidence based and accessible for decision making and planning.My advice for other Dialogue Convenors is for them to carefully observe the principles of engagement and show high level of commitment to enforcing it as it relates to their Dialogue Themes. This will help us have a successful report from which better planning and decisions can be generated to have an improved and Resilient Food systems.

Yes

234238239242243248249The major focus of this Dialogue is to know how seasonal supply of agro inputs and taking off of farm produce can be monitored and timed with the use of ICT. When farmers are given the right farming inputs, their yield gets improved and when the yield is counted into productivity by being collected / off-taken regularly and on time with proper information management system, Farmers become encouraged to learn more effective ways in order to produce more! Many farmers in Africa need a digital platform where their voices can be heard. They suffer losses due to produce boom or glut and are left to tackle the challenges that comes with it on their own. Sometimes, government aids may take too long to come and when it arrives, it becomes irrelevant because farmers who needed such aids have moved on in life even to the point of quitting farming. There is an urgent need to use Information Communication Technology as never before in salvaging the needs of farmers, input distributors, and farm produce off-takers for an effective service delivery towards more farm yields. The use of mobile applications, Social media, Web 2.0 and the ordinary GSM technology are tools already running in most country of Africa. This dialogue helped to answer questions on • How we can utilize these digital tools as building blocks for a smooth running food system value chain. • How to know when a farmer in ‘Town A’ is waiting for an off –taker in ‘Town Y’ who will definitely come despite another being on stand-by. There is no better period than this digital age. Also, the use of information and communications technologies in farming systems will also promote smart farming and make it attractive for youths who easily deviate from farming because of the traditional method adopted by most local farmers in the remote places. Some of the objective of this dialogue are • To identify challenges farmers encounter in receiving farm inputs, • To identify challenges farmers and produce collectors encounter in off-taking farm produces and proffer solutions that will bridge the gaps identified towards giving farmers direct access to verified input distributors and produce collectors / off-takers. • To create a road map for digitalizing information dissemination to farmers accessibility to inputs and off-taking.235238242243248• It was discovered that most farmers experience huge losses during the sale of farm produce while the middlemen who buy these farm produce below cost price makes the profit. This is more evident with farmers who produce perishable products with low durability. They don’t always have better option than to sell off quickly to available middlemen who price down their products. This occurs due to the big gap existing between farmers and direct consumers. There is great need to promote the use of internet based applications or platforms where farmers can showcase their products directly to the consumers or connect with them in other to sell at a good price and attain high productivity. • It was also revealed that farmers incur much expenses in purchasing basic agro inputs like seeds, feeds and fertilizer. Some of the middle scale and commercial farmers in West Africa spend so much money importing seeds from abroad because it is not easy to source it in their location, where as it exists in large quantity somewhere in their home country but because they have no knowledge of it, it becomes expensive to buy from far away countries who leverage on online technologies to sell their products. There is urgent need to raise the awareness of using affordable agro-commerce platforms or social media handles among farmers locally to trace where agro inputs are available and cheaper in their locality. • Most farmers lack machineries for effective farming and this accounts for low productivity and high cost of labor. There is great need to establish functional farming equipment hiring services where these equipment can be leased and hired by the government or organizations whose duty is to assist marginalized farmers. • Lastly, it was made known that there is weak marketing linkage and poor information management in the farming system. Therefore, there is need for actors and stakeholders like farmers, extension agents to frequently consult ICT experts to eliminate this challenge.236238242243245248Agro input challenges as faced by farmers ; Mr Chukwuemeka Ogbuagu opined that the lack of farm machineries (as agro inputs) which makes farming easier and faster can be addressed by possibly finding or establishing functional farming equipment hiring services where these equipment can be leased and hired. Such hiring services can be conducted online with the use of ICT for efficiency and ease of access. He further suggested that there is need for advisory services to go virtual. A good example is virtual adverts on sourcing farm input materials. Role of Agro input Dealers Associations/ Cooperatives in improving the use of ICT in Food system value chain; Mr Edoja John, CEO of FarmerShop, an agro-commerce platform that creates a link and connects farmers to agro-inputs dealers and farm-produce buyers, suggested that farmers should take advantage of agro- commerce platforms to sell their products where they decide the price they sell their produce to avoid unnecessary losses. Platforms like this helps farmers to list their farm outputs and connect directly with their consumers to sell their products faster. Application of ICT in Farming systems; Mr Iheanacho Patrick MD of Zardalic Consults listed the tools in ICT that can be used to facilitate different processes in Farming systems. Tools like Telephones for interactive voice response, Computers and websites for agricultural information and markets, Broadcasting for expertise sharing, advisory and information dissemination in communities, Satellite for weather, universal accessibility and remote sensing, Internet and broadband for knowledge sharing, social media, e-community, market platform, trading and so on. Sensor networks for real time information, better data quantity and quality, decision making. Data storage and analysis for precision agriculture and actionable knowledge. How ICT can help close up emerging gaps in Food systems in event of a disease outbreak; Engineer Chikelue Nwabuike an artificial intelligence engineer and also the Technical state head at Globacom Nigeria suggested that artificial intelligence can be useful for farmers whereby images captured by drones and satellites could be modelled to predict weather conditions, analyze crops and evaluate farms for the presence of diseases. He further said that this can be used to advice farmers and serve as a guide to farmers. How ICT Can work for farmers, Agro dealers and produce Collectors; Mr Buchi Ikeh an IT consultant, CEO Broad Digital Nig Ltd said that ICT can work for farmers and produce collectors by the use of cheaper digital platforms (Web, Mobile App, USSD, SMS) in accessing, sharing and exchange of agricultural knowledge, price info and sale of produce. He further state that this will help to strategize market activities as it is very useful in solving issues such as traceability, process control, transparency in market information, reduction in transaction costs, and identification as well as tracking of consumer needs.237238242246248There was an opinion of some participants putting the blames on government for the low level of adoption of ICT in the farming system. They strongly believe that government should show high level of commitment in handling issues associated with food systems. While others argue that farmer should not depend on the Government for everything and that the Government has little or nothing to do with a farmer not making use of a smartphone and not having access to agro information already available on the internet.

2021-03-28 22:42:02204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/1514/194

372259111262212141120122110112211045502

In email communication sent to all registered attendees leading up to the event, I included the Principles of Engagement as an attachment, and directed the group to review them. I also included the principles in trainings for the Facilitators a month before the event.The participants were engaged in open dialogue, and the facilitators and speakers laid the groundwork for a trusting environment conducive to acting with urgency and complimenting the work of others as a collaborative group working toward a common vision. We discussed network weaving the and importance of diverging opinions, although each group experienced very little to no conflict or divergence in opinions during discussion sessions.I would encourage conveners to present the Principles to participants in advance of the dialogue to help frame how participants will work together, as they help inform the welcoming environment of the dialogue.

Yes

234239241244246247The major focus of the dialogue was to envision a future for food service centered on equity, sustainability and economic well-being for food and farm workers. Through six discussion questions which focused on Action Tracks #2 and #4, groups used a systems thinking approach to evaluate and propose food system ideas which benefit and relate to food service. Using "Advancing Equitable Livelihoods" and "Shifting to Sustainable Consumption Patterns" as a guide, we explored and shared key actions to take in the next 3 years to achieve a vision of a more equitable and sustainable food service industry by 2030.235239241244245246247248249The main findings of the dialogue related to: 1. The importance of knowledge building and co-creation of solutions across stakeholder groups, to increase awareness through transparent knowledge building. 1a. Increase consumer knowledge about where their food comes from and how, to incentivize more direct, local purchases and sustainable consumption habits. Proposed methods: *Educational campaigns/consumer marketing campaigns to improve perception of the value of food and farm workers to the community at large. 1b. Product IDs which list the location/environmental impact of a consumable item Proposed method: Transparent information on packaging ratings to guide decisions in markets/groceries, which encourage climate-smart choices, and reward consumers through financial incentives/rebates 1c. Sharing resources among farmers to co-create new solutions Proposed method: facilitated community groups among farmers, embedding indigenous farmers to learn from the inherent wisdom of the past to solve for climate adaptation in the future 1d. Transparency of best practices for farming in the era of climate change can lead to less energy required to produce food, which could reduce the cost to the consumers (increasing fresh food access for consumers at an affordable price) 1e. For Consumers: education to change mindset to value quality over quantity, to increase inclusivity of the sustainable food movement, including imperfect foods and how to reduce waste and enjoy more of the food available. Proposed methods: Education about diet related diseases and packaging impact on environment Goal Outcome: to reduce convenience eating, and encourage a different environment in which eating occurs (slower, at a table, eaten on reusable plates even in schools and institutions) 1f. For Farmers: invest in beginning professional farmer training programs, free, transparent education for all farmers on agroecological practices that support the environment, especially in the face of climate change and severe weather patterns. 1g. For Food service workers: invest in education and empowerment, so that this entry-level profession can become a career path, acknowledging the trickle down effect to other industries. Include “food as medicine” education, climate education, and the value of sourcing close to home to support the local food economy. Empowerment can lead to social change through climate-friendly menus, menu marketing, and better production habits that reduce waste, aiming at a closed loop system. 2. Relationship building to increase community connection and incite community-led action. 2a. Connecting the land-owner and farmer to co-create equitable land access. Goal outcome: Could increase cooperation through co-creation and involvement in decision making by the operator of the land, in conjunction with the landowner. 2b. Connecting the consumer to farmer/producer to build livability of farmer profession and to increase responsible consumption by consumers. Proposed solutions: Connect institutions like schools more closely to the farmer, directly, by weaving school procurement into the educational programming in K-12 schools (next level Farm 2 School programming) Embed indigenous food leaders into school food programming, to influence menus, and represent traditional, climate-smart foods that reduce packaging and can increase healthy food knowledge for food workers and students. 2c. Increase ability for WIC/SNAP dollar holders to spend money directly to farmers, including CSA shares, farmers markets, and community-owned groceries. Proposed actions: Create financial incentives for farmers or local stores to improve access for more consumers at lower costs. Increase cultural sensitivity of WIC/SNAP approved foods to promote inclusivity and reduce diet related diseases 3. Improving the living wage standards of farmers and food service workers, acknowledging the ripple effect of investing and empowering our entry level workforce as a lever to increase sustainability practices and advance equitable livelihoods, while security the future of food production. 3a. Political restructuring, more collaborative structures that support and increase value of food and farm worker jobs, which creates a sustainable ripple effect in our economy. 3b. Reimagine grocery stores that shorten supply chains and put more money directly into the hands of the producer/farmer 3c. Create accountability for land stewardship through consumer tax programs that invest in regenerative land practices (ie a public utility model to develop agroecological practices that benefit the ecosystem in and around developed areas).236238241243245246247248249Discussion Topic: By 2030 we have reversed the way our food dollars are spent, instead of 15% to the farmer and 85% to the supply chain, it is now 85% to the farmer, and 15% to the supply chain. Key outcomes: Remove or reimagine grocery stores to connect consumers more directly to the farmer and their food; increase education on healthy eating by way of revitalized home economics in schools, school interactive education with farmers, and through legislation with encourages more Urban Agriculture (UA) and diversity of farm owners. Goal is to reduce poverty by decreasing cost of food, through a shorter supply chain and stronger relationships between farmers and consumers, which creates community trust, support, community action. Measures of success of these efforts evaluated by: an increase in number of farmers per capita, an increase in farmers with a livable wage, an increase of schools using farm direct sourcing, and an increase in number of farmers markets across neighborhoods (ie 1 market per neighborhood to increase food access).236238239243244246247249251Discussion Topic: "Our food system prioritizes the health and education of farmers and food service workers, which helps reduce diet related disease levels in the community by 40%." Key outcomes: national public educational campaigns can help inform consumer choices, by explaining the vital role of farmers and food service workers in the web of food systems, elevating their profession and creating more social capital to support their role in community food and health. Education and empowerment for food and farm workers funded by the food industry, government, or public campaigns can shift food service toward supporting environmental and public health goals. Increasing cooperatives and social groups among workers helps build knowledge sharing and facilitates co-creation of solutions, empowering workers and creating social responsibility among consumers.236238239241244246247248249Discussion Topic: Foodservice professionals help reduce hunger by 50% in the city, where they work in partnership with a range of community organizations Key outcomes: Key coordination needed between food systems, climate change and education industries. Collaboration is critical to inspire "radical community food action," where there is autonomy for people to access and grow their own food to increase food security. Reaching a liveable wage is also critical, and we need policy change and urban agriculture land use regulations that can support economic opportunities for fresh food production within city limits. Decreasing food waste through a shifting of labeling regulations (ie removing expiration dates in favor of 'best by' dates) and leveraging technology to connect organizations as a method to utilize food before it is wasted. Consider alternative means of payment for food, like meal tokens, to increase access and reduce friction especially for fresh, healthy food.236238239240244246248249Discussion Topic: Chefs enable lower greenhouse gas emissions markedly by reducing packaging and guiding consumer trends toward climate friendly diets, where the average consumer eats 40% less meat in 2030 than in 2020. Key outcomes: Government led sustainable solutions for packaging are critical; we need tighter regulations and financial charges for non-sustainable packaging, recognizing the true cost of packaged food on the environment. Help change perceptions and habits of consumers through take out food re-envisioned, where food can be enjoyed on a plate rather than in a wrapper. Educate consumers through transparently shared information to guide their choices, and consider including financial incentives that reward purchases of less packaged, plant forward foods. Creativity in the kitchen is key to promote plant-based diets to mass consumers, so education for food professionals and chefs on how to cook plants creatively, and balance nutrition without meat, is crucial. Consider relying on blockchain technology to inform consumers of packaging implications of the food they are considering, as well as the environmental footprint, especially important with meat-centered vs. plant-centered main dishes.236238239244246247248251Discussion Topic: By 2030, school and institutional menus include 40% less packaging and feature culturally significant, inclusive foods, while addressing public health and climate realities. Key Outcomes: Need to change the mindset and environment in which people eat in schools and institutions, in favor of a slower, more community based meal format. Look to other countries as a model (ie Italy) for how budgets are balanced to support labor and equipment needs to reduce packaging and encourage reusables in meal settings (the refettorio model). Leverage the power of community to increase support of local farm direct produce in institutions, incorporate food into the curriculum, and increase connection to traditional food knowledge specific to a location by embedding local indigenous leaders into institutional food program planning and procurement (ie The Intertribal Agricultural Council in the USA; rural community leaders in Indonesia). Fund program innovations through existing federal and state money, in addition to community-supported funding by schools, companies, and consumers.

The formatting for the official feedback form looks hard to read, so I've attached a document that represents the feedback in an easier-to-read format. 2021-03-28 23:20:31https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/March-20th-Independent-Dialogue-Feedback-Summary.pdf

2021-03-29 10:21:14205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/9658/95

99099

NoMAFF held the dialogue with stakeholders for developing the new strategy for realizing both the productivity improvement and sustainability through innovation, called “Measures for achievement of Decarbonization and Resilience with Innovation (MeaDRI)”. MAFF explained the outline of a draft of MeaDRI to the stakeholders, followed by the expression of views of the stakeholders on challenges and opportunities for sustainable food systems associated with the strategy.

234239240242244248249The expression of views of the stakeholders on challenges and opportunities for sustainable food systems associated with the new strategy, “MeaDRI”.235239240242244248249The main remarks of the participants are as follows. (1) In order to increase the understanding of society on the cost increase, it is important that the value of agricultural products produced in environmentally friendly manner is recognized. For this purpose, labeling and information disclosure using digital technology are important. (2) Innovation is important for cost reduction. (3) Efficient application of fertilizers and pesticides is important. In order to improve efficiency, the major issues are the consolidation of agricultural land and the outsourcing of work in areas where farmers cannot handle it.

2021-03-29 10:24:41205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/8113/95

33021111

NoMAFF held the dialogue with stakeholders for developing the new strategy for realizing both the productivity improvement and sustainability through innovation, called “Measures for achievement of Decarbonization and Resilience with Innovation (MeaDRI)”. MAFF explained the outline of a draft of MeaDRI to the stakeholders, followed by the expression of views of the stakeholders on challenges and opportunities for sustainable food systems associated with the strategy.

234239240242244248249The expression of views of the stakeholders on challenges and opportunities for sustainable food systems associated with the new strategy, “MeaDRI”.235239240242244248249The main remarks of the participants are as follows. (1) Approximately 80% of greenhouse gas emissions in the entire supply chain of the food manufacturing industry are caused not through the manufacturing process but by upstream and downstream business partners. Regarding the upstream, it is important for the agriculture, forestry and fisheries industry that produces raw materials to decarbonize the food system. (2) It is important to implement policies that lead to sustainable behavior of corporates, including SMEs which account for the majority of the food manufacturing industry. (3) Food industries associated with food supply chain as a whole should cooperate and collaborate to address environmental issues such as decarbonization and human rights issues. Public-private collaboration under collaboration among governments is important, in addition to raising awareness of Japanese society and industry on the issues as a whole, such as through disseminating National Action Plan (NAP) on Business and Human Rights. (4) When using domestically produced raw materials with consideration for sustainability, shift to an internationally recognized sustainable production methods is important so that domestically produced raw materials can be selected compared to imported raw materials and also can be evaluated when exporting. In addition, it is also important to have a mechanism that allows food manufacturers to confirm and use them. (5) It is important to raise consumer awareness of environment and human rights and thereby increase the recognition and dissemination of the background information on the reason why sustainable manufacturing and procurement are necessary. As the environmentally friendly lifestyle spreads, it becomes important to transform market, such as accepting costs arising from decarbonization and consideration to sustainability. (6) As the time goes on, consumers’ concerns on health and the environment has increased, which has created another value for consumers on soy protein. Against the background, now that the soy protein factory is at full capacity, our impression is that consumers can change their minds over time. Therefore, it is important to examine marketing tools that encourage consumers’ behavior change. (7) In addition to considering the sustainability of the production process, palm oil itself is an issue recently as it contains harmful substances. In this regard, regulations for palm oil are becoming stricter, especially in Europe. Since it takes cost to replace it with alternative oils or remove harmful substances, it is necessary to deal with the issue by such as receiving government supports and/or promoting price pass-through. (8) Europe is often the center of rulemaking. Therefore, the Japanese government should strive to develop international rules so that Japanese companies are not at a disadvantage. (9) There are multiple certification systems for palm oil, etc. It should be possible to make various choices according to various needs. (10) One of the causes of low labor productivity in the food industry is the delay in robotization. Therefore, it is important to innovate business models using technologies such as AI. (11) In order to reduce food loss and waste, it is necessary to optimize trading practices such as easing delivery deadlines and order lead times, forecast demand by using AI, and promote food banks.

2021-03-29 10:28:14205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/9691/95

9907272

NoMAFF held the dialogue with stakeholders for developing the new strategy for realizing both the productivity improvement and sustainability through innovation, called “Measures for achievement of Decarbonization and Resilience with Innovation (MeaDRI)”. MAFF explained the outline of a draft of MeaDRI to the stakeholders, followed by the expression of views of the stakeholders on challenges and opportunities for sustainable food systems associated with the strategy.

234239240242244248249The expression of views of the stakeholders on challenges and opportunities for sustainable food systems associated with the new strategy, “MeaDRI”.235239240242244248249The main remarks of the participants are as follows. (1) We believe that soil preparation is important to realize labor-saving and low-cost sustainable agriculture without excessive dependence on chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Especially, improvement of soil fertility is important. (2) Regarding organic farming, it is necessary to solve the problem that the hurdle of organic JAS (Japanese Agricultural Standards) is high for the Japanese climate and the value of organic farming products is not accompanied by the cost. We are looking forward to innovation for the solution. (3) How to give added value as "organic" and how to create a market are important, and the key point is a policy to incentivize consumers to prefer organic agricultural products. In addition, it is important to secure raw materials that do not depend on imports in order to ensure sustainability. As transportation cost is an issue for the use of organic matter, how to promote local production and local consumption is a key point.

2021-03-29 10:30:46205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/9700/95

11011

NoMAFF held the dialogue with stakeholders for developing the new strategy for realizing both the productivity improvement and sustainability through innovation, called “Measures for achievement of Decarbonization and Resilience with Innovation (MeaDRI)”. MAFF explained the outline of a draft of MeaDRI to the stakeholders, followed by the expression of views of the stakeholders on challenges and opportunities for sustainable food systems associated with the strategy.

234239240242244248249The expression of views of the stakeholders on challenges and opportunities for sustainable food systems associated with the new strategy, “MeaDRI”.235239240242244248249The main remarks of the participants are as follows. (1) Since wholesalers deal with a large number of manufacturers and retailers, the burden of logistics and data processing is extremely heavy. Because it is necessary to standardize and construct infrastructure for data linkage, we are working to realize it. However, it seems to be difficult to achieve this under the current situation. (2) As the manufacturing industry, wholesale industry and retail industry have been optimizing themselves separately, there are some unoptimized parts within the entire supply chain. We are coordinating between industries towards data linkage throughout the supply chain. However, it is not easy to change the existing mechanism. In this regard, it is expected that involvement of the government will create transparency and fairness and will be a driving force for efforts.

2021-03-29 11:56:11205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/9704/95

5503223

NoMAFF held the dialogue with stakeholders for developing the new strategy for realizing both the productivity improvement and sustainability through innovation, called “Measures for achievement of Decarbonization and Resilience with Innovation (MeaDRI)”. MAFF explained the outline of a draft of MeaDRI to the stakeholders, followed by the expression of views of the stakeholders on challenges and opportunities for sustainable food systems associated with the strategy.

234239240242244248249The expression of views of the stakeholders on challenges and opportunities for sustainable food systems associated with the new strategy, “MeaDRI”.235239240242244248249The main remarks of the participants are as follows. (1) Although "Electrification and conversion to fuel cell for fishing boats " has many issues to be tackled, it is an innovation that will definitely be needed in the future. This cannot be helped by fishermen alone and requires support by national government. At the same time, it is necessary to raise awareness of the needs among fishermen. (2) Transforming fishing boats to high-performance and environment-friendly ones will contribute to increasing the employment of young people who will lead the fishing industry in the future. (3)It is indispensable for realizing carbon neutral to promote creating seagrass bets and algae and shellfish cultivation as these will promote CO2 fixation through utilizing blue carbon ecosystems and thereby contribute to reduction of environmental loads. (4) It is necessary to develop technology for biodegradable plastic fishing gear and packaging materials without using plastic in the areas of processing, distribution and consumption. (5) Raising consumer awareness on the importance of environmental consideration through the spread of ecolabels will contribute to the sustaining development of Japan's fisheries and fish food culture. (6) For producers and distribution processors, in particular, those who operate small businesses, costs of acquisition and maintenance of ecolabel certification are particularly burdensome. Supports for the development of ecolabel products is also needed. (7) Ensuring a stable food supply through aquaculture is extremely important. For that reason, the raw materials for the feed of farmed fish should be able to be circulated locally.

2021-03-29 11:56:53205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/9697/95

6603333

NoMAFF held the dialogue with stakeholders for developing the new strategy for realizing both the productivity improvement and sustainability through innovation, called “Measures for achievement of Decarbonization and Resilience with Innovation (MeaDRI)”. MAFF explained the outline of a draft of MeaDRI to the stakeholders, followed by the expression of views of the stakeholders on challenges and opportunities for sustainable food systems associated with the strategy.

234239240242244248249The expression of views of the stakeholders on challenges and opportunities for sustainable food systems associated with the new strategy, “MeaDRI”.235239240242244248249The main remarks of the participants are as follows. (1) As the population grows, it is necessary to secure animal protein. However, as seafood has less environmental impact than livestock products, there is relatively more room for increasing seafood production. (2) Offshore aquaculture has a high tolerance for absorbing environmental loads and is a proper direction from the viewpoint of sustainability and reduction of environmental loads. (3) In addition to CO2 fixation, the conservation of seagrass beds is an indispensable for water purification, egg production and growth of aquatic organisms. It is important to respond appropriately to changing environment and to carry out activities in cooperation with fishermen and local residents. (4) As I have been involved in the aquaculture industry for many years, I really feel the rise in seawater temperature associated with global warming. In fact, there are reports of the damage. Reduction of CO2 is a major challenge that we have faced. (5) As blue carbon is an unavoidable issue, the government should move ahead the activities to tackle the issue. In Norway, efforts are under way to use seaweed not only as a CO2 sink but also as a nutrient.

2021-04-01 01:07:41204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/2333/135

63035171148157533366545352516534410553032302233

The organization of the Dialogue ensured that various groups of stakeholders were informed and participated during the dialogue. This is reflected on the outcome of the Dialgoue.The Dialogue organization thoroughly analyzed the food systems and Agricultural value chain whereby key actors at all levels were reached to participateIt is pertinent that Convenors put in place a guiding document to help all attendees and speakers understand the key issue to be addressed.

Yes

234238239240241242244245246247248249251(i) Enhancing capacity of farmers, agri-food enterprises and value chain stakeholders as key drivers of food systems. (ii) Unpacking the established multi-stakeholder and multi-sectoral food governance policies and legislation at sub-national and national levels. (iii) Forge collective solutions to ensure that food systems transformation delivers on social good and expectations to ameliorate hunger and poverty. (iv) Emphasize the application of tech as building blocks for an open-ended opportunity to sectoral players. (v) Create a connection to ease information sharing amongst the various agricultural value chain stakeholders.236238245246248Despite efforts by regulatory Agencies, food Safety is not evenly guaranteed across Nigeria. Lack of safe and nutritious food and the burden of unhealthy diets hit the poor more. Children around insurgent- wrecked north-west and communal clashes-prone areas in Nigeria are undoubtedly malnourished. High consumption of calories result in overweight and obesity, especially in children and young adults. There are concerns on monitoring of producers, processors and food vendors -the lapses linked to weak coordination of governance support systems in driving implementation of policy and regulation frameworks on nutrition, food safety and hunger eradication. To strategically ensure access to safe nutritious food for Nigerians, it behooves on respective MDAs to work together to eradicate systemic and institutional inadequacies and amplify resources and programs in compliance with the AU Food Safety index to increase access to healthy and nutritious food from production and processing to table. Government is encouraged to effectively implement a sustainable national home grown school feeding program, taking lesson from Osun State.236239244245246248249251The possibility of easily shifting to sustainable consumption patterns seems uncertain. Dilapidated infrastructures no longer support farmers and other actors within the Nigeria agricultural value chain. Unavailability of improved farming systems whether for subsistence (to metamorphose) or commercial farmers delimit application of innovations and investments in promoting healthy food production and packaging for consumption and waste management. Inadequate investment in proper food preservation contribute to high rate of food waste. For lack of proper supervision, unregulated private sector operators fail to produce food products that promote healthy and safe diets, thus putting consumers’ health at risk. The importance of attaining sustainable consumption patterns can hardly be overemphasized. To achieve this, the supply chain audit is needed to dissect vulnerabilities; build infrastructures; create cluster for local farmers to share information and learn recycling, proper preservation and waste management techniques while synergizing cooperation among stakeholders in the agriculture and food ecosystem.236240244246249251Deforestation, land degradation, bush burning are some of the factors endangering nature-positive food production in Nigeria. Inadequate data and early warning information systems on weather and climate conditions cuts crop yield and risks adequate food supply, increases cost of food items and causes hunger. Post-harvest losses alone is damning mainly due to lack of storage facilities -which reduces the opportunity to explore value addition to boost income (for the producers) and increase local and national food supply chains. In meeting the aim of Boosting Nature-Positive Food Production, respective Government agencies have responsibilities of providing farmers with biofortified crop seeds and adequate training to boost production of farm outputs as well as incentivizing regenerative food production. The Meteorological Agency needs to start information dissemination in local languages on Radio to aid Farmers in planning and tracking climate conditions.236241243245248249251Advancing Equitable livelihoods to proffer economic recovery and growth solutions for the vulnerable within the context of subsisting challenges is further hampered by lean access to agricultural inputs, distribution, transportation and value addition opportunities to uplift vulnerable people and communities in Nigeria. Non-compliance with (and lack of application of) digital and financial technologies solutions by farmers and other supply chain players deprives actors from the pull-and-push activities benefits. The Dialogue called for concerted efforts by the Government and other stakeholders to catalyze agro- zones, reactivate localized investments and upgrade smallholder farmers (especially women, youth, the disabled) to become investable through adequate training and support, advisory services and access to research opportunities.236242243245246248249The evolving nature of our environmental and social systems has rendered obsolete the traditional measures of preparedness for shocks and stress and even ways we built resilience to vulnerabilities. Farmers and indeed everyone become too vulnerable to undue environmental, health and economic shocks and inequalities. Rarely do farmers have reliable data on product, financial status and access to efficient commodity exchanges. Smallholder farmers lack the capacity to conduct proper monitoring and evaluation. The services of experts and/or Extension workers to train and retrain farmers on contemporary acceptable vulnerability and shocks preventive measures is in extinction. It was strongly recommended creating access to finance and insurance for smallholder farmers, SMEs and agricultural value chain clusters/cooperatives (e.g. Nigerian Stock Exchange growth board) as a means to spur rural transformation and investment in food systems. Additionally, training these actors to adopt regenerative and circular practices as economic, social and environmental preparedness to future shocks and vulnerabilities.236238239240241242245246248249251Insurance for farmers has not been widely discussed while bureaucratic bottlenecks continue to become a persistence barrier to turning policies to actions for short and long-term social good. Farming is unattractive to young people, who, for lack of participation, also lost out from the enormous benefits in the enlarged Agricultural value chain. Categorically, all stakeholders (research institutes, CSOs, government, private sector) are called to collaboratively design and adopt peer-to-peer national campaigns to educate and mentor youth as active agriprenuers -introducing agrictech (such as hydroponic farming, digital procurement, e- commerce, smart farming, weather & climate services, digital finance).236241242246247249251The alarming spate of insecurity across several States in Nigeria, which has led to killings and clashes between crop farmers and herders creates a siege psyche. Under this circumstance, shortage of food produce is imminent. Workable synergies be activated between responsible public and private sectors to galvanize already made efforts to eradicate insurgency and banditry, give confidence to farmers and other sectoral players to contribute towards attaining sustainable food systems in Nigeria.237238239240241242243245246247249a) Mechanism for monitoring and evaluation of government policies. b) Human rights under-achieved c) Unsustainable support system to farmers

2021-04-02 09:37:11204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/7080/6296104

552431811112252320

The Dialogue was organized according to the set principles of engagement of the summit. Participants were introduced to the summit vision, objectives, and the current status of the region in the introduction. An open discussion followed encouraging all participants to participate in providing their proposals. Four challenges were identified in the context of the Arab and participants proposed “Live” their proposals using the Mural application. Key stakeholders from Arab regional and national organizations, academia, private sector, civil organizations, research institutions, union, federations and others were invited to the dialogue.Holding as virtual Dialogue necessitated the use of different approaches for engaging participants during the zoom session. Dialogue conveners encouraged active participation by recording the session, making it available for all participants. It also used the “Mural” application which allowed direct input from participants onto the board, allowed to see input from all participants simultaneously and allowed voting to prioritize issues and identify benefiters and actors for change. Furthermore, many were provided the opportunity to provide input directly from the floor or in the chat box and questions in relation to the action tracks were asked to trigger comprehensive input from all.It is recommended to present the Summit objectives and vision and action tracks with some facts and evidence-based information linked to the action track at the beginning of the session. This may promote further intervention from participants especially if these facts are related to the region/country. Using an application that is visual and allows direct input from participants showed to be efficient in collecting further views and addressing hot issues that may arise such as identifying responsibilities for each game changer proposed and prioritizing issues based on relevance

NoOwing to COVID-19 restrictions, the dialogue was organized as a 90-minute online meeting using the Zoom platform. The dialogue modality allowed for active participation of stakeholders using a combination of tools including an interactive online platform “MURAL” where participants were invited to write their proposals live while broadcasting. Time was allocated for active discussions and interaction. The Arab Stakeholder Dialogue was divided into two parts: Part I presented the objective of the present dialogue, provided background information about the food system summit in general and the three types of anticipated dialogues. A review of the selected five action tracks and main drivers affecting food security within the context of the Arab region were presented. These drivers included conflicts, water scarcity, and climate change. Part II used an interactive online discussion platform MURAL to allow participants to identify game changing solutions. Using “MURAL”, participants could review key and relevant facts, discuss and propose actions needed, and identify actors responsible for implementing these actions in each of the areas of interventions selected. As a result, Game changers actions were proposed on each of the four identified issues related to the action tracks namely Transitioning to Healthy Food, Advancing Equitable Livelihoods, Optimizing Sustainable Production, and Responding to Risks and Hazards. Afterwards, participants voted to identify the most relevant and impactful action from the proposed list and then identify the stakeholders concerned with implementing proposed and immediate beneficiaries. Following, time was allocated for oral discussions in relation to the actions.

234238239240241242The dialogue aimed at addressing four priority issues were identified as most relevant to the Arab Region namely: Transitioning to Healthy Food, Advancing Equitable Livelihoods, Optimizing Sustainable Production, and Responding to Risks and Hazards. For each priority issue, key challenges and facts in the region were identified and game changing actions were proposed including actors and beneficiaries.235238239240241242The game changing actions identified across each of the four issues that were discussed and voted upon as priority based on experiences. (a) Transitioning to Healthy Food 1. Provide incentives for healthy consumption and buying healthy food 2. Use innovative methods for food production (research - preproduction) (Most voted on) 3. Enhance marketing strategies (Identification of food groups for vulnerable groups) 4. Promote and establishing decentralized local markets, in partnership with small farmers, to ensure access to healthy food in light of crises 5. Train young men and women to be involved in sustainable land and agriculture. 6. Organize workshops on the benefits of organic farming and limiting use of chemicals 7. Promote incubators to increase technical expertise and scientific information 8. Increase awareness on post-harvest losses 9. Raise awareness on nutrition and promote the education on nutrition 10. Harmonize regulations within the region to improve exchange of commodities (2nd most voted on) 11. Provide a special platform for marketing sustainable agriculture products (3rd most voted on) 12. Consider access to healthy food a basic right whereby states need to ensure safe and affordable access to healthy food 13. Enhance coordination with all stakeholders to focus efforts on improving situation (b) Advancing Equitable Livelihoods: 1. Enhance accessibility of farmers to technology mainly small farmers (most voted on) 2. Support and promote agro-processing in rural areas 3. Invest in solar energy and renewable energies especially in rural areas (2nd most voted on) 4. Increase awareness on the role of women in food systems and agriculture sector 5. Raise awareness on water consumption challenges by responsible ministries 6. Enforce land registration systems to help financial access (3rd most voted on) 7. Protect local food systems from dumping 8. Promote entrepreneurship and innovation for youth and women to improve job creation, increase income and improving livelihood in rural areas 9. Enhance land management systems that protect access to land 10. Promote use of efficient water management systems that are accessible to small farmers (c) Optimizing Sustainable Production 1. Increase budget (public and private) provided for research on agriculture production 2. Enhance reliance on agricultural and industrial incubators 3. Invest in agricultural extension programs and staff 4. Better assess and understand limitations of existing natural resources to better respond to these challenges 5. Encourage innovation in the field of green biotech crops 6. Study potential of transforming desert plants to edible foods 7. Protect agricultural lands and reviewing national policies for land use 8. Support agriculture and ecology and limiting the use of chemicals 9. Promote agricultural research and improve access of producers to it 10. Increase interest in agricultural research and extension 11. Use of on modern technologies in irrigation to conserve water resources 12. The use of modern technologies in agriculture, water harvesting, and supplementary irrigation are important factors in sustainable production 13. Use of drought resistant crops in pilots and scaling up its use in arid areas 14. Awareness and capacity building in the use of modern and appropriate technologies (d) Responding to Risks 1. Need for more agricultural insurance institutions 2. Improve knowledge sharing and exchange of experiences between governments and organizations 3. Adopt the triple nexus approach (Humanitarian/ Development/ Peace- HDP) in a participative manner during crisis contexts 4. Resolve the underlying causes of vulnerability to risks and drivers of crises 5. Provide social safety nets and risk prevention mechanisms 6. Adopt emergency policies, plans, and programs 7. Enhance risk-based decision making among populations 8. Enhancing capacities to cope with risks and Hazards as during these times challenges should be faced together and everyone should contribute 9. Engage women in agriculture and food production236238239240241242• Access to healthy and sufficient food at all time is a right and requires intervention from governments. Promoting and establishing decentralized local markets, in partnership with small farmers, enables the access to healthy food in times of crisis. • Importance of role of the national private sector as it has a direct impact on the local markets. Having the private sector more involved in enhancing food security to enhance balancing between expectation and reality. • Importance of Transfer of technology importance to empower small and to better empower entrepreneurs to come up with new initiatives, piloting them, recording their work modality and benefits so that farmers are encouraged to scale them up. • Collaboration and cooperation between all stakeholders. Governments are the primary stakeholders to many of the actions related to enhancing productivity as any sustainable production process requires relevant policies and providing the needed infrastructure that enables stakeholder make use of needed technologies for sustainable production processes. • Implementation of National emergency plans however due to instability in the region these plans are not being implemented. Also, a need for enhancing national reserves as they should be distributed across the country and are not supposed to be stored only in one area to reduce risks. • Need to link between humanitarian response, sustainable production in times of conflict. Managing the root causes of vulnerabilities and investing in stopping conflicts and wars based on human rights are primordial. Humanitarian aid needs to be focused and promote locate food systems and that governments are required to make sure that the aid received considers national priorities that protect the most vulnerable people.237238239240241242The participants were knowledgeable of the main challenges in the region and stressed on the need to have urgent action and implementation.

2021-04-02 09:43:35204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/7085/6296104

4417275332328

The Dialogue was organized according to the set principles of engagement of the summit. Participants were introduced to the summit vision, objectives, and the current status of the region in the introduction. An open discussion followed encouraging all participants to participate in providing their proposals. Four challenges were identified in the context of the Arab and participants proposed “Live” their proposals using the Mural application. Key stakeholders including representatives from reginal and national youth organizations were invited to the dialogue.Holding as virtual Dialogue necessitated the use of different approaches for engaging participants during the zoom session. Dialogue conveners encouraged active participation by recording the session, making it available for all participants. It also used the “Mural” application which allowed direct input from participants onto the board, allowed to see input from all participants simultaneously and allowed voting to prioritize issues and identify benefiters and actors for change. Furthermore, many were provided the opportunity to provide input directly from the floor or in the chat box and questions in relation to the action tracks were asked to trigger comprehensive input from all.It is recommended to present the Summit objectives and vision and action tracks with some facts and evidence-based information linked to the action track at the beginning of the session. This may promote further intervention from participants especially if these facts are related to the region/country. Using an application that is visual and allows direct input from participants showed to be efficient in collecting further views and addressing hot issues that may arise such as identifying responsibilities for each game changer proposed and prioritizing issues based on relevance

NoOwing to COVID-19 restrictions, the dialogue was organized as a 90-minute online meeting using the Zoom platform. The dialogue modality allowed for active participation of young stakeholders using a combination of tools including an interactive online platform “MURAL” where participants were invited to write their proposals live while broadcasting. Time was allocated for active discussions and interaction. The Arab Stakeholder Dialogue was divided into two parts: Part I presented the background information about the food system summit and context for the Arab region. Part II allowed for active participation of youth using a combination of tools including an interactive online platform “MURAL”. Participants were invited to write their proposals live while broadcasting, and identify game changing solutions based on their experiences and their needs, and finally identify the responsible actors for implementing these actions.

234238239240241242The dialogue aimed at addressing four priority issues were identified as most relevant to the Arab Region namely: Transitioning to Healthy Food, Advancing Equitable Livelihoods, Optimizing Sustainable Production, and Responding to Risks and Hazards. For each priority issue, key challenges and facts in the region were identified and game changing actions were proposed including actors and beneficiaries.235238239240241242The game changing actions identified across each of the four issues that were discussed and voted upon as priority based on experiences. For Transitioning to Healthy Food, - Make laws that makes it illegal to waste food - Reduce the consumption of junk food especially for children - Raising awareness on the effect of malnutrition (diabetes, obesity, heath related cost, etc) For Advancing Equitable Livelihoods - Sop child forced labor - Implement youth economic empowerment programs to reduce high unemployment rate among youth in the region - Give equal right to women and men in accessing resources For Optimizing Sustainable Production - Capacity building for CSOs on using use solar power - Use crops that are climate resilient and require less amount of water For Responding to Risks - Reduce import dependency by diversifying trade partners - Build capacities of youth and civil society to adapt to climate change236238239240241242• Raise awareness on the effects of malnutrition and its cost on health and importance of consuming healthy food, reduce the consumption of junk food especially for children and provide system-wide solutions to address the issues of malnutrition and obesity • Better understanding of the food chain so that people can come closer to the source of their food and appreciate its value and reduce its waste. This could entail subsidizing initiatives to reuse wasted food to make compost, energy and animal feed and raising awareness of young people in urban cities on importance of reducing waste. • Give equal right to women and men in accessing resources, stop child forced labor and promote youth lead economic empowerment programs to reduce high unemployment rate. • Review land and water tenure modalities to ensure equitable access to resources and allow land access to nomad Bedouins, make available different sets of food pricing to enable access to cheap food for the most deprived , and ensuring access to basic food as basic right for all • Build capacity to improve use of green technologies that are affordable, use water saving technology to help farmers and promote use of nonconventional water resources • Promote research, use of technology and renewable energy, use climate resilient crops that require less amount of water and save local seeds and improve agro-diversity • Shift to plant-based protein consumption and reduce meat consumption • Reduce import dependency by diversifying trade partners and increase trade on food products between Arab nations • Going back to local food traditions instead of globalized ones as the local foods are the ones most adapted to local climatic conditions • Subsidize environmentally friendly agriculture practices: permaculture and follow scientists’ recommendations on climate change issues and other hazards237238239240241242The participants were knowledgeable of the main challenges in the region and stressed on the need to have urgent action and implementation.

2021-04-05 03:36:21204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/2987/94203

491928264222263333521541014214419

In organizing te dialogue we partnered with other local ngos, women organizations, youth led organizations and academia involved in food systems. Invitations were sent to participants representative of the diversity across the food system. The dialogue was organized using the standard format to ensure the active participation of participantsThe dialogue was inclusive, participatory, holistic by design and had participation from the majority of CARICOM member states. It was certainly expansionary and interdisciplinary and the entire emphasis was on enabling pathways for a more sustainable and resilient food system regionally. The notes attached may provide more contextKeep framing remarks short Utilize polls as a filler for establishing groups enter zoom room early and name the breakout rooms and have facilitators assigned As people enter begin mechanically assigning to breakouts Use polls to help fill the gap in establishing the breakouts and activate discussions Use the dialogue preparation material to assist Have additional facilitators on standby in case of no show or internet challenges Ensure facilitators are prepared and have prompt questions. Ensure facilitators do not attempt to prescribe what the participants should say but allow for open respectful dialogue on the discussion topic. Preparation is key and having prompt questions helps. Developing the facilitator skills through the training helps

Yes

234238239240241242244245246247249250251The major focus was an exploration of pathways to a sustainable and resilient food system. Participants examined six discussion topics 1. Boosting Nature Positive Food 2 E Waste and Impacts on Sustainable Agriculture 3 Food Safety and Security 4. Regenerating and Protecting Critical Ecosystems and Biodiversity 5, Agro-Forestry and Integrative Agriculture 6. Environment and Climate235238239240241242244245246248249250251As we move towards satisfying food production and human nutrition, there is a great opportunity to also influence changes of mindsets, policies and investments globally. There is a need to now redesign each food system with a framework that supports the ecological processes, and better utilizing outputs from other operations to reduce the wastage and excessive inputs. Engaging in circular economy activities such as the recycling of biomass (composting) and livestock waste (biofuels) can add great value to our environment, once done right. Simply adding compost or humus can have a positive impact on soil health, fertility, water retention and can even combat some effects of climate change. Sustainable financing regimes need to consider supporting and scaling circular economy projects, There should be increased investment and support in the design, development and sustaining of national and regional quality infrastructure and architecture that embeds the circular economy into the regional food system, biodiversity and ecosystem management framework. Greater investment is needed to support taking the circular economy projects to scale It is felt that government should play more visible and facilitative role in the management of e waste. The facilitative role should enable and enhance partnerships among government, manufacturers, academia, civil society and the general public to be more aware and to work together in addressing the challenges associated with e waste and its impacts on soil health, water pollution, marine biodiversity and the food system in general. There is a need to develop improved national and regional standards and regulations for the disposal, management, and treatment of e waste. On the other side of the risk involved from negligence there is significant opportunity for industry and sustainable livelihoods to be developed from the proper management of e waste. There is a need for improved urban planning and land use reform to support food system enhancements. It is necessary to promote the transition from monoculture to integrated low carbon agriculture and to move away from the plantocracy styled economic model We must develop enhanced systems that support agricultural development, e.g. seed banks, organic fertilizers There is need to build capabilities and more widely educate farmers and processors in good agricultural practices, good manufacturing practices, safety standards, seed production, organic fertilizers. Capacity building should also include ways to optimize the use of animal and other waste on the farm to create organic fertilizer and where applicable, energy There is a need to develop platforms and support systems that help connect farmers with markets. Increased investment and support should be aimed at helping the farmers to comply and exceed GFSI, FSSC, FSMA, HACCP, ISO and other standards applicable to food safety and security. A support system that helps farmers and processors to produce crops that are environmentally friendly and have lower carbon foot prints. The support system should also help to pay for the consulting, implementing technical requirements, testing and other process controls required by international requirement. There is need to develop a national and regional organic certification program that supports fully organic and regenerative agriculture practices. Standards and Technology is not sufficient to improve the regional food system. There is need to develop a culture that emphasizes quality, sustainability, resilience and ongoing learning and improvement. There is a need to develop a framework and model driven by evidenced based scientific principles that helps support sustainability individually and collectively, strengthens the management of the interconnections, helps manage gaps and strengthen resilience. The redesign needs to support ongoing learning, sharing and cooperation with stakeholders across the food system. Both State and private sector needs to align and act as a driver for improved sustainability and standards throughout the food system. Educating consumers on the meaning, value and benefit of proposed organic/regenerative certifications and healthier food choices are critical to sustaining a demand and market for high quality, safety and sustainably grown nature positive food. Regional and national food safety and security technical committees should be formed to support efforts to develop and deploy standards. On the national level, the structure should be replicated on the county or municipal levels and a mechanism for alignment and funding should be available to help the councils in their work to assure that standards are deployed at the community level. The Councils should work closely with government agencies,236240241242244245248249250In these modern times, the goal should now be to produce healthy and nutritious food for a growing population, while taking into consideration the regenerative measures to manage our natural resources such as soil, water and ecological biodiversity. There is need to establish an organic certification regime that supports the development of nature positive low emission agriculture practices. There is also a need for increased investment into education, training, capacity building and awareness needed to support nature positive production and consumption. Sustainable streams of financing needs to be made available to support demonstratable high impact agroecological and other forms of climate smart and resilient agriculture to take programmes to scale in mitigation and adapting to climate change. Financing regimes must be flexible and agile to enable efficient access and effective utilization by small and medium enterprises, small holder farmers and community-oriented organizations. Financing regimes should include ongoing coaching, mentorship and advisory support to help de-risk projects and encourage strong partnerships in design, execution, monitoring and improvement of science based, data inclusive, high impact mitigation, adaptation and resilience projects More thought and emphasis has to be placed on the positive social impacts of agricultural production and how a healthier environment can have a better impact on the way of life for all. Positive impacts are created to strategic use of nature positive, low emission and decarbonizing approaches to agriculture. Common examples of human health issues were found from the effects of the abuse of agrochemicals such as pesticides and antibiotics. There is a need to now redesign each food system with a framework that supports the ecological processes, and better utilizing outputs from other operations to reduce the wastage and excessive inputs. Engaging in circular economy activities such as the recycling of biomass (composting) and livestock waste (biofuels) can add great value to our environment, once done right. Simply adding compost or humus can have a positive impact on soil health, fertility, water retention and can even combat some effects of climate change. Sustainable financing regimes need to consider supporting and scaling circular economy projects, There should be increased investment and support in the design, development and sustaining of national and regional quality infrastructure and architecture that embeds the circular economy into the regional food system, biodiversity and ecosystem management framework. Greater investment is needed to support taking the circular economy projects to scale The practice of Agroecology can offer many solutions and close the loops of linear production type systems as well as to enforce the linkages that build resilient agricultural systems. There is need for mechanism to support wider adoption of agroecological practices regionally/. A national and regional agroecology committee should be considered with the mandate of developing a strategic plan, aligning policies, legislation, processes and practices with nature positive agriculture, engaging stakeholders and bridging the gaps in research and the farming community. Wider use of the agroecological standards and model can enhance biodiversity, bio capacity and reduce the carbon footprint of the food system across CARICOM. This system would be a great model for the CARICOM, as it incorporates species of plant and animal wildlife, from both terrestrial and aquatic environments,236238239240241242244245246248249250Solutions include: There is need to establish interdisciplinary and multi sectoral regional and national committee/Working groups that treat with the issue in a comprehensive and systemic manner. Amongst other things the committee can develop standards for disposal, treatment and management of ewaste, for working with producers and manufacturers on product efficiency standards, extending product life cycles, refurbishing and reuse of ewaste and with avoiding the dumping of inferior quality electronic products in the region under the disguise of aid/charity National and Regional Standards Bodies working with Academia and Scientific Community to Implement a rigorous regime of Soil and Water Testing, Supporting Small and Medium Holder Farmers, Rural communities with testing, sampling, and certification to standards. There is need to engage the communities in a citizen science regime and the data from the regime deposited in a national database to allow for strategic monitoring and decision making. It was highlighted that this is among the reasons the European Union has introduced traceability standards with respect to inputs (water, fertilizers and soil) into agriculture produce entering the EU Market. The idea of a Blockchain approach was also discussed to aid in traceability A more robust national and regional e-waste public relation campaign needs to be done, and focus on a collaborative approach The regional e-waste capacity building training and awareness approach should start in regional primary schools, then expand into secondary schools and universities. This will ensure that there is generational appreciation for the proper handling, disposal and treatment of e-waste. There is a need for enhanced body of standards and balances that helps to build product efficiency and lengthen the life cycle. All stakeholders need to be active engaged and participate in designing and implementing those standards Actions to be taken fall within three areas of standards and regulations: National- Bureau of Standards across the region need to develop standards for product and energy efficiency, product durability and reliability, and standards for disposal, handling and treatment of e waste; Regional- A regional standard needs to be developed by CROSQ that helps align the work of all national bodies. The approach needs to be multidisciplinary and multisectoral involving private sector, civil society academia, state solid waste management authorities, the Basel Convention Regional Centre for the Caribbean (BCRCC), Caribbean Farmers Associations, FAO, Inter-America Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA), and other entities affected by the impacts of e waste on their sectors UWI; International- International partnerships with amongst others ISO Committees, UN Organizations, WTO, United Nations University Step Initiative, UN GEF From a sustainability perspective, small islands should consider moving away from a linear to a circular economy that will limit waste generation as well as reliance on the supply of virgin materials from outside.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Academia and Ministries of food production need to work closer together to provide additional research and technical assistance in the communities and in putting research and development into action. Regional Governments and donor agencies need to provide increased funding and support to Universities and Colleges through grants and other forms of assistance to enable them to better support sustainable community development endeavours. The Universities and Colleges should be allowed to be investors in social enterprises that help scale climate mitigation, adaptation, community resilience and other activities that give support to improving food sustainability, quality and safety. National and regional bodies will need to examine how hydroponics and aquaponics can be brought into the organic certification regimes and framework. There needs to be a framework that caters to and validates any efforts being made. The standards development body needs to define clear quality, safety, environmental and security standards for container growth and green house production. Develop and support a standards regime that facilitates the growing of safe and affordable food and taking it to market at scale. There is need to increase investment into the quality and safety infrastructure that allows for widespread commitment and application of food quality and safety standards Centre the issue of equity in the heart of standards, technical assistance, financing programmes and offset regime. Develop an improved risk management regime for farmers that include but not limited to crop insurance regimes; regimes that transfer impacts from. polluters and carbon intensive industries to farmers and process that offset, especially if done at scale and in keeping with equity There should be benefits and incentives tied to organic/regenerative agriculture practices in the crop insurance regime and other risk management services Regimes should develop in such a way that allows for the cost of production, cost of certification to standards and the cost to bring safe and healthy food to market can be fairly prices and not become disadvantageous to farmers. Assure farmers are fairly compensated for nature positive low emission decarbonized agriculture production should be central to any safety and security regime The implementation of national and regional land use and urban planning reforms. An inclusive approach should be adopted that involves civil society, academia, technical societies, trade unions, technical committees, citizen advisory bodies, private sector, citizen assembly, local government, government members, opposition member and independent senators Water and energy efficiency systems need to be more widely deployed in support of the food system There is need for comprehensive educational reform to enhance an appreciation of local food, locally grown and processed and marketing local.food through festivals, fairs, school programs Greater advocacy for land reforms that support distribution for food purposes. There is need for greater community involvement in land reform.policies that may include taking vacant lots and making agriculture plots as part of a promising community intervention. Efforts should be made to support backyard efforts, roof top efforts, community gardens and small holder plots The initiation of a national and regional organic certification program. The program should also address animal rights/welfare and other social and labour issues. Find Notes attached236238239240241242244245248249250251We need to place greater value on the intergenerational and indigenous knowledge of biodiversity. This knowledge needs to be categorized and recorded to maintain its full potency. Legislation needs to be put in place to enhance the value of our biodiversity and provide guidelines and parameters for conservation efforts. It needs to be determined which species are endangered and thus put rules in place to protect both plant and animal species. Effort should be made to explore permaculture design; using biogas to generate energy It is necessary to move away from embrace in the concept of a monoculture which was an approach legitimized by slavery, and look into the ways in which varieties of plants and animals can provide sustenance and value More research and development into the wealth of the Caribbean’s biodiversity needs to be done. It is crucial to focus on protecting the intellectual property of the region regarding any products created with our flora and fauna, and seeking to patent any processes that are indigenous. The enzymes produced by local mico-organisms may possess the cures to illnesses, this knowledge should be seen as viable. There must be corresponding legislative development to enhance the protection of this intellectual property. We must maximize on indigenous knowledge. There is need to mainstream indigenous knowledge into the standards and regulatory regimes being developed. There is also a need to increase access to sustainable finance to support scaling indigenous approaches and practices Education at all levels primary, secondary, and tertiary needs to focus on how important it is to value or biodiversity. There needs to be new subject on the curriculum which focuses on social studies and agriculture: Agro-civics. We can seek to engage stakeholders in the educational ministries and lobby effectively. The goal would be to adopt a multifaceted approach to enhancing an appreciation/value of our own biodiversity by creating a subject that complements traditional agricultural sciences and makes it more relevant to our regional needs, and the attainment of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Create regional food and agricultural festivals in order to heighten the awareness, and thus the value, of our local products and the diversity of these products. We need to become primary producers of our biodiversity and seek to go up the value chain. There needs to be regional sensitisation to the value of biodiversity. Need to investigate how farms contribute to GHG and Methane emissions There must be regional cooperation and collaboration. There is strength in numbers, and the stronger we are, the more effectively we can protect our biodiversity. Small holder farmers need to seek to build their skill set and find ways to embrace mixed farming rather than monoculture. Also, embrace aquaponics and green housing. There is a need to support the capacity building, training, education and awareness of small holders in learning and later applying new knowledge and approaches We need to tap into the huge market for organic products/raw products and sustainably produce more indigenous species, for pest control, natural beauty products, and consumption, and market them well. The future generations need to be appreciative of the potential value of our local biodiversity. There must be practical, monetary support of any local efforts to preserve biodiversity, Finding ways to monetize offsets for low emission and carbon sequestration236238239240241242244248249250251There must be a focus on the importance of training our future generations. Better training leads to better processes and better work. In today’s ever-changing challenges, the importance of training has never been greater. On the farm training is an indispensable way to keep our organization competitive Highlighting the benefits of Plant-based food, which tend to have a lower planetary impact than animal-based foods. As such, as a global community, we can reduce our environmental footprint by increasing the proportion of plant-based products that we eat Open up new growth opportunities with Cross Marketing; utilize various media when marketing and promoting Having to compete with imports prices A farmer or company that has decided to export its product or service to a new market or to buy from a new supplier in a different country cannot take for granted that the transactions will be expensive, and competitive. An exporter must ensure acceptable and timely returns on their financial investment in proportion to the associated costs and risks. Finding trust worthy partners is of great importance. We can ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all by involving manufacturers in the decision-making dialogues to ensure nutrition in food is maintained even while on the shelf. We can also do this by empowering more persons to participate in farming at home that way they can guarantee how it has been produced. We can shift to sustainable consumption patterns by creating a resilient framework for farmers to be properly educated from a tender age about the entire process of farming skills; reshaping the conversation about the purpose and the benefits of agriculture across the Caribbean; and by involving agriculture into schools to educate younger population from an earlier age We can advance equitable livelihoods in the food system by supporting local markets for local farmers to earn quality incomes; by marketing agriculture and creating more enticing jobs within the agriculture industry, and; utilizing more homemade products to support Caribbean food sustainability rather than depending on imported food. We can build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress in the food system by investing in skills training, land spaces, technology, financial support and mentorship for agricultural purposes Some things that might prevent the above solutions from happening are: Lack of cohesiveness between the systems in place to govern farmers; inadequacy of guided human and financial support, and; a gap between updated research and grass root activities236238239240241242244245246247248250251Sustainable procurement practices need to also be more widely applied by the private sector. These should support preference for local and regionally produced foods Expanding education programs on climate smart and resilient agriculture practices. Practices such as beekeeping, community gardens, no till agriculture, indigenous agriculture practices, agro forestry rainwater harvesting, stormwater management and mitigation Utilize contract farming/sustainable procurement as means of reducing food loss, reducing carbon footprints and having farmers know exactly what varieties of crops to grow. This can support improvement in relationships and also support more collective approaches. Support community led action and procurement of community produced food in local institutions such as hospitals, hotels, schools and juvenile institutions A community organic certification is necessary. However, there must also be community partnerships with neighbouring communities to ensure no fertilizer being used throughout and protection of water sources occurs The formation of community-based partnerships. Partnerships with CSO, state development communities, adjacent communities, research communities Some institutions like hospitals already recognise the need to grow their own foods e.g. Point Fortin hospital in Trinidad. The initiative provides opportunity for Outpatients and the wider community to be involved in such activities. The institution supporting more community and locally grown food would also help create a more stable and viable revenue stream for local communities and for national and regional farmers. Communities like Brasso seco and Lopinot coming together to implement rain water harvesting systems which are more sustainable and in keeping with climate smart agriculture practices. Developing targeted and tailored education programmes for all age groups and communities is seen as critical to ensuring that all stakeholders are aware of sustainable practices. In our community we can take action by educating and creating awareness, encouraging persons to plant and also by setting up community gardens, backyard gardens, expanding school gardens, community food hubs and community based slow food restaurants. Slow food restaurants can be a niche for eco tourism communities that actively promote on organic and regenerative principles on a community scale. To enhance resilience in the community scale bee keeping initiatives, nature-based methods and other hybrid methods aimed at providing additional covered areas has been proposed for bees. It was felt that hurricane-resistant green houses as more profitable in long term. Community based resilience can also be enhanced through the wider use and implementation of urban agriculture practices including aquaponics, grow box systems and vertical systems for urban areas or restricted space for agriculture.237238242244250The necessity of fertilizer use

2021-04-05 05:39:03https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Notes-on-Group-Discussions-in-UN-Food-Systems-Summit-Independent-Dialogue-Pathways-to-Sustainable-and-Resilient-Food-Systems-3-March-27th-2021-Reviewed-1-1-1-2.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Notes-on-Group-Discussions-in-UN-Food-Systems-Summit-Independent-Dialogue-Pathways-to-Sustainable-and-Resilient-Food-Systems-3-March-27th-2021-Updated-1-1-1-2.docx

2021-04-07 05:08:42204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/5731/203

16151022119142441

The areas of discussion were crafted in a way as to accommodate inputs from multiple perspectives, different knowledge areas and lessons learnt. The selection of keynote presenters and addresses took into consideration their area of expertise, gender and geographic location.The dialogue respected the principles of inclusivity and trust. Each participant was given a moment to express his/her views and perspective as regard what s/he wants to see happen. All participants declared their continuous support and commitment toward ensuring the summit’s vision is met.Yes, dialogues outcomes are meaningful when they reflect multiple views. This can only be achieved if each participant is given the opportunity to express his or her mind. The process of inviting participants should be carefully planned and should embrace diversity.

Yes

234240242247249251The dialogue had as focused to elucidate possibilities for advancing Rights of Nature paradigms in Africa while assessing current challenges and identifying opportunities in envisioning a Sustainable Food Systems for Africa.235240242249It was agreed by all participants that a clear implementation strategy be design in view to foster the rights of nature while substantially contribute towards a sustainable food systems transformation in Africa.236240242244246247249251The discussions identified the following action areas as priorities to foster Sustainable Food Systems Transformation in Africa through the lens of defending the Rights of Nature: • Legislation: Recognizing legally that nature has fundamental rights to fulfill its natural cycles which are the basis of food systems nutrient cycle is critical. Moreover, the right of the population to live in a healthy and ecological balance environment must be view as a fundamental right. Safeguarding nature’ rights within the margin of our legal systems and policy making process ensures natural life cycles are respected thereby contributing towards building stronger and resilient ecosystems capable of regressing the effects of climate change while supporting continuous supply of nutritious food. • Changing behavior: Adoption and integration of an ethical approach to food systems transformation through the promotion of ethics of respect and stewardship for nature especially for ecosystems relevant to food and agriculture productions will significantly accelerate food systems transformative process. • Ecocide law: Use Rights of Nature as some of the tools to oppose prominent destructive agricultural practices which clearly are in violation of natural principles and values e.g criminalized ecocide. • Promoting and Supporting Indigenous Food Systems: Native seeds, smaller farms and agroecology generally produce more and healthier foods and the Rights of Nature can support governments to promote these types of Food Systems because doing otherwise means continuous devastation of nature. Based on these understanding, promoting rather displacing food sovereign communities is a good step in securing healthy and nourishing agriculture. • Education: Use formal and informal education to promote awareness, discussion and actions in support of Nature’s rights. Relearning Indigenous ideologies and practices is vital because most Indigenous philosophies are eco-friendly and have strong sustainability foundations. We have to transform our culture of exploitation and promoting the Rights of Nature can drive forth the cultural realization that humans are part of nature and the environment and cannot be view separately. The need for higher education in earth and ecological law was emphasized by most of the participants. • Policy: Governments should recognize the protection and preservation of the environment as a public interest because our ability to produce food is directly link to the state of our planet, ecosystems and natural resources. We must use innovative policies tools to give nature a voice in decision making about how we treat the land. Having the right attitudes to align and implement these policies is key. To go about is to take our examples from indigenous knowledge which for over generations have brought out sustainable results. • Partnerships: The process of transforming our food systems through the pathway of recognizing the legal protection and preservation of vital ecosystems will requires a cross-sectoral collaboration across political, environmental, socio-economic and development players. • Empowering Indigenous communities, rural women and youth as drivers of change. This can be done through capacity building on leadership skills, advocacy and knowledge areas relevant in advancing nature’s rights in their respective communities. • Adoption of nature-based approaches that does not disengaging from nature in the process of food production and consumption. Nature has to determine how we should produce food.237240242246Some areas of divergence stemmed from: • Agreeing on a suitable approach for the implementation of the Rights of Nature in Africa in view to achieving resilient and inclusive food systems in Africa. Some participants proposed a Top – Bottom approach while other insisted that a Bottom to Top approach will work best. • Controversies on which group should take leading role as an agent of change; individuals, women, youth, indigenous groups or community-based Organizations.

2021-04-07 14:28:32204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/7013/203

400581422002651354077107571020253530713091475186133552015207142

•In the planning phase of our dialogue, we made sure to create a panel that represented a diverse range of stakeholders in the food system to allow the audience to gain a more complete view of the challenges faced in agricultural and food trade. There were several test sessions and active exchanges with participants on the topics which were to be discussed which aimed to build trust between the conveners and curators, making sure all parties were comfortable with the scope and format of the discussion that would take place. This enabled the discussions to flow more naturally. •The dialogue included representatives of various international organizations, the FAO, the World Bank, and the OECD. It also included farmers, the agro-food industry and banking. This, in addition, to several WTO representatives specialized in initiatives and programs designed to help developing and least-developed countries build agricultural trade capacity and infrastructure. • The questions directed at the panel aimed to explore various facets of how agricultural trade can be enabled, stressing the vital role that trade plays in global food security. Panelists discussed how agricultural trade policy can itself be transformed to be made more fit for purpose for today’s food systems. For example, global agricultural subsidies (which are second only to global energy subsidies) clearly need to be repurposed to achieve the goals of the United Nations Food Systems Summit and support sustainability.The Dialogue made clear that international trade affects the (1) availability, (2) access to, (3) price stability, and (4) utilization of food, and is a fundamental part of the food security puzzle. The Dialogue demonstrated that Global Value Chains (GVCs) have become a key feature of international food trading system. The FAO estimates that about one-third of global agricultural and food exports are traded within a GVC and cross international borders at least twice. It was made clear that to “enable agricultural trade” it would be important to de-risk participation in GVCs, in particular to allow for the inclusion of smallholder farmers who have low commercialization. The WTO used the opportunity to showcase its technical assistance programs. It explained the vital role of WTO Aid-for-Trade – a coordination mechanism which in the field of agriculture allows for greater policy coherence amongst donors, a better identification of policy priorities and a more efficient targeting of aid. It also explained how the Standards and Trade Development Facility (STDF) works, and its vital role in enabling developing and least-developed countries to meet international food quality, safety, nutrition and other standards. In the Dialogue, the World Farmers Organisation allowed the views of smallholder farmers who are often excluded from the process of policy creation to be heard; Unilever provided insights on the importance of agility, innovation and sustainability in agricultural GVCs; Rabobank's inclusion allowed the discussion to explore the crucial role trade finance plays in facilitating trade. . Wider participation and interaction was also encouraged with the panel in a live Q&A format. The dialogue provided a holistic overview of the current state of the food system.1. Engage a broad range of speakers, the dialogue needs to needs to be truly multi-stakeholder 2. Ask the difficult questions 3. Address all the different facets of an issue 4. Allow ample time for Q&A

NoOur dialogue was delivered in a panel format. The panel was composed of 6 stakeholders from diverse backgrounds and 2 WTO Secretariat representatives. The event was curated/moderated by Doaa Abel-Motaal from the WTO secretariat. The event ran for 2 hours. In these two hours there were 2 rounds of questions with questions divided equally amongst the panel. In the 3rd round those participating via youtube and teams in the audience had the opportunity to feedback/engage directly with the discussion through a live Q&A function and panellists had the opportunity to discuss the points raised by other panellists.

234238239242244246248249•The dialogue theme was 'Enabling Food Trade'. The discussion examined the role of trade policy in ensuring access to safe and nutritious food that is produced and consumed sustainably. The role of international trade in food will only rise in importance with the onset of greater climate change, where many more parts of the world will have to rely on trade for their food security.235238239240241242244246248249• The main findings included that: (1) international trade in food and agricultural products is absolutely vital for global food security, and that its role would rise in importance in light of the climate crisis and the inability of some regions to feed themselves; (2) to “enable agricultural trade” it would be important to de-risk participation of smallholder farmers in GVCs, deploying adequate trade finance, technical support to meet standards in export markets, increased investment in infrastructure to support smallholder farmers with low rates of commercialization; (3) although international food trade is a fundamental part of the food security puzzle a better understanding of the 'political economy of trade' is needed so that negotiations on the transformation of agricultural trade policy can progress.236239240244246249250•The repurposing of agricultural subsidies: It was agreed that a major overhaul of the current system of agricultural subsidies is needed to stop subsidizing “business-as-usual” which encourages unsustainable practices and start subsidizing “food system transformation”. •The internalization of negative environmental externalities in international food and agricultural trade. •The liberalization of agricultural trade, which will only become more important in light of the climate crisis and the inability of certain parts of the world to feed themselves.237238239240241242244246249250•Our dialogue highlighted the existing tradeoffs which present 'sticking points' in the progress of food systems transformation. One such issue is finding the balance between the desire to reduce trade restricting non-tariff barriers (such as SPS and TBT measures) to allow developing countries greater access to more lucrative export markets and the need for such barriers to safeguard against harmful foods and prioritize food safety. •Most of the worlds farmers are smallholder farmers and through this dialogue, it was found that they needed a stronger voice at the negotiating table. Their interests should be prioritized moving forward in the discussions on food system transformation.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Trade-Dialogue-Poster.jpghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZF9j19Cd60&t=3867s

2021-04-07 17:42:22204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/4362/203

62043621102932118167162318673151651216

The Farming First Independent Dialogue was organised for our 200 supporter organisations within the Farming First coalition to come together and discuss what farmers need in future food systems. Farming First is a multi-stakeholder coalition whose supporters together represent the world’s farmers, scientists, engineers and industry as well as a broad mix of agricultural development organisations working all over the world. Farming First supporters all endorse a broad-based framework consisting of six interlinked principles for sustainable development: 1. Safeguarding natural resources 2. Sharing knowledge 3. Building local access and capacity 4. Protecting harvests 5. Enabling access to markets 6. Prioritising research imperatives Returning farmers to the centre of policy decisions is fundamental to the sustainable food systems of the future. Governments, businesses, scientists and civil society groups must focus attention on the source of our food security and nutrition. All these groups must work together to enable the many millions of farming families, especially smallholders, to grow more productively and sustainably through effective markets, more collaborative research and committed knowledge sharing. The Dialogue theme was chosen specifically to encourage Farming First participants to discuss a path forward for a farmer-centred, science-based, innovation-led approach to support our food systems. This includes an honest discussion not only of areas of synergy but also divergence. Each of the five breakout sessions was facilitated by a Farming First supporter, and the session was curated by the President of the World Farmers’ Organisation, Theo de Jager.Farming First exists to identify and promote the many ways in which sustainable agricultural development can be advanced worldwide. With one shared voice, Farming First highlights the importance of improving farmers’ livelihoods as well as the important contribution that agriculture can make to the food system, including in areas like food security, nutrition, climate change, and biodiversity. It also aims to build synergies amongst its supporters in promoting Farming First’s mission. Our Dialogue was multi-stakeholder in that it reflected the full breadth of the Farming First coalition. The breakout sessions were held under the Chatham House rule, which helped to build openness and trust.Food systems affect us all, and it is important to create a virtual space where all actors across the agri-food value chain feel comfortable sharing their priorities, aspirations and challenges in an open, discursive manner.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246248249250251The theme of the Farming First Independent Dialogue was ‘What Farmers Need in Future Food Systems'. Five breakout sessions were organised, one for each of the Action Tracks. Farming First supporters, including farmers from four continents, were asked to select which of the five breakout sessions they would like to participate in, and facilitators were selected to run each of the breakout sessions. They were asked to first allow participants to introduce themselves, then to discuss specific challenges experienced by the participants in their work and the solutions they offer in support of farmers, then to discuss how these overlap into synergies or trade-offs (either by theme or by region) moving forward.235238239240241242243244245246248249250251The opening and closing sessions found broad consensus across the group around several key areas: • Young people will be most affected and will be most relevant in driving future progress across food systems. • Farmers will face heightened pressure to deliver on consumer expectations and also to compete with non-traditional productions systems like laboratories and urban facilities. • There is an urgent and continued need for robust data and innovation, and for food systems policies to be informed by and formulated based on science. • The connection between farmers and consumers needs to be strengthened so that we all understand better how and where our food comes from and the conditions that farmers navigate to produce our food each day.236238243244245246248249250251Action Track 1: Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all The participants noted: • Farmers need support (and a rationale) to grow and sell more nutritious varieties of crops. It’s a big risk to many farmers to change what they’re currently growing, and it’s not necessarily more profitable to do so. • Different regions experience different realities, both in terms of the agroecological and also the socioeconomic conditions where they operate. • Technology and innovation are key to helping farmers be more productive and also to reduce food loss and waste. • Educating consumers from a young age about nutrition and food systems is key. • Support is needed not only at the farm level but across the entire agri-food value chain.236239243244245246248249250251Action Track 2: Shift to sustainable consumption patterns The participants noted: • Farmers and consumers need to be better connected, not only in terms of market access but also in terms of mutual understanding, which in turn informs consumer behaviour and expectations. • Climate change is requiring more urgent and diverse need for innovation in terms of inputs, extension and access to information and finance. The policy environment must enable this. • Farmers need to be incentivised to adopt various practices, especially in terms of consumer demand. • To engage young people, it’s essential to level the playing field. This is especially true for smallholder farmers struggling to access resources.236240243244245246248249250251Action Track 3: Boosting nature-positive production The participants noted: • Agriculture is not the enemy; it is a solutions provider. There are win-win solutions that exist. • It is challenging to identify clear recommendations that are scalable globally yet adaptable to local conditions. • Access to technology does not need to be regulated globally: different technology will be beneficial in different locations. • Farmers are not getting sufficient recognition for the continual improvements being made. • New technologies are already helping farmers ‘grow more from less’, from disease detectors and moisture sensors to plant breeding innovations that increase productivity and lower the carbon footprint. • Climate change is making it harder for farmers to know how to manage their production reliably and efficiently, for instance late rains washing away seeds that have just been planted. • Farmers need support, in terms of incentives and research support, if they are to be tasked with carbon sequestration on their farms. • Digital solutions are driving progress in precision agriculture.236241243244245246248249250251Action Track 4: Advance equitable livelihoods The participants noted: • Farmer livelihoods must be considered in balance with the demands of purchasers and their consumers. • Farmers need access to markets, innovation, training and finance. • Farmers must collaborate more effectively (e.g. via cooperatives) to have a larger voice in policy discussions and to be able to access bigger markets or partnerships • There is an urgent need for metrics that make it easier to measure progress and outcomes.236242243244245246248249250251Action Track 5: Build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress The participants noted: • COVID-19 has revealed the interdependence of actors across food systems. • The pandemic has also revealed how innovations across the value chain have supported on-going production, from basic social distancing measures to shorter supply chains. • Sustaining market access and trade is key in supporting resilience – with access to information across the supply chain essential for anticipating bottlenecks or addressing overlaps. • Ensuring better and more consistently applied standards for planet and human health is also key. • Climate variability and change makes it harder to bounce back and also to adapt and transform when necessary. • Farmer needs resources and incentives to handle the additional responsibilities they are being tasked to deliver, for instance insurance, social safety nets and financing.237238239240241242243244245246248249250251There was broad consensus across the Dialogue participants on many priorities. The areas of divergence often were centred around differences in regional contexts and needs rather than significant ideological differences. Participants also noted a range of tensions that exist amongst different actors within a food system. These included: • Rising consumer expectations vs. farmers’ ‘on-the-ground’ realities (and need for secure livelihoods) • The promise of technologies (especially digitalisation) vs. the need to support farmers to be able to access them • The promise of mechanisation vs. its effect on employment opportunities for large rural populations • The need to respect local/traditional knowledge vs. the need to adapt practices in the face of climate change • Growing expectations for farm level management of landscapes vs. the need for farmers’ incentives and capacity to implement them • The need to acknowledge (and even celebrate) progress vs. the need for continued urgency in further innovation

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Summary-document-–-AT1-horizontal.pnghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Summary-document-–-AT2-horizontal.pnghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Summary-document-–-AT3-horizontal-543x305-1.pnghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Summary-document-–-AT4-horizontal-543x305-1.pnghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Summary-document-–-AT5-horizontal-543x305-1.pnghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gp7IsVYiIGUhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2GTmHX9yiMhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AWDNZykFF0https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7cdqMacM18https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWQC4aOIBK8

2021-04-08 02:07:01204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/9970/45

0

No

2021-04-08 09:15:22204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/3894/91

1206258

Act with Urgency: We structured the dialogue to focus on a vision for 2030. Keynote speakers were briefed to speak about whatever they wished but to keep it future focused and positive so as to ensure participants were in a 'change mindset' before the dialogues on the trade-offs' Reinforcing this, in the two Dialogue sessions the breakout rooms were facilitated with a view to design thinking with 20 mins each on Vision, Barriers,/Trade-offs and First steps. Commit to the summit: We did ask people to share actions they would do between the first and second events but this did not work. We structured the breakout sessions using design thinking (Vision, Barrier/Trade-off, First Steps) Respectful: Everyone's opinion was heard. We stuck to timings pretty rigidly to ensure this. Principles were reinforced at the start of the initiation session. Recognise Complexity: By focusing on trade-offs we emphasised the complex interactions in the food system (global v local, cost v quality etc.). Divergent views were important in clarifying how complex the system is. Embrace Multi-Stakeholder Inclusivity: We engaged as broad a range of stakeholders as possible from producers right through to processors, retailers, civil society, environmental groups, government departments and government agencies and consultants in the food sector. Complement the work of others: We included a recap of the main outcomes of a previous independent dialogue in Ireland and we have engaged with the steering Committee for the National Dialogue to ensure outcomes feed into that process as well. Build Trust: We operated based on Chatham House Rules and made this clear in every session. Outcomes were summarised and presented back to participants for validation before writing this report.There was very open and robust exchanges of ideas, but everyone recognised that there was a need for change and that each stakeholder had to do something.Time management is critical. Don't let any one individual dominate a discussion. Ensure everyone gets a chance to speak. Remaining future focused from the outset is critical. There is no point in having the same conversations between the same people that have been had many times before, you need new voices and perspectives in the room. Having a truly 'independent' dialogue with no financial backing or agendas worked very well, but can be limited by your own networks and your own ability/capacity to engage stakeholders Trying to pack everything into a single 2hr session gives very little time. We spread our Dialogue across 4x90 min sessions across three weeks(1 x Initiation session with key note speakers and limited discussion; 2 x Discussions sessions, with key note speaker and then break-out rooms for an hour; 1 x Consolidation session to validate findings). This allowed time for participants to reflect on what they had heard/contributed and to come back with more nuanced contributions. After each session we shared very brief outputs to encourage this reflection. We felt this worked very well as we had high repeat participation across the events.

NoWe used a very similar method to the one in the manual, but with a few differences. 1. We had four sessions over three weeks. Each session was for 90 minutes. The Initiation session included 4 keynote speakers and a representative recapping on an earlier independent dialogue. There was time for some discussion, but this was limited. This was followed a week later with two dialogues, one on sustainable and equitable consumption and one on sustainable and equitable production. Each of these was opened by a key note speaker before we broke into discussion groups (x4 in each dialogue). This gave a full hour for participants to have detailed discussions with three 20 minute blocks focusing on vision, barrier/trade-off and first steps. We then drafted the findings and circulated prior to a consolidation session a week later where they were validated, before completing this form. 2. We did not structure the break-out rooms according to the 4 questions in the facilitation guide. We used the design thinking model mentioned above. We felt this worked very well. 3. However, because we kept our discussion topics very broad, so as to engage as many stakeholders as possible, it meant oit was very difficult to delve in detail into any one trade-off and get commitment from participants to take action. The process was very much about setting the scene and opening people's minds. 3. We also did not collect names or details on participants. We possibly should have collected the details requested above, but as we used our own networks to invite people we felt it was not worth collecting all that information. The figures given in the first section are estimates based on total registrations for the first session. Everyone did get a chance to speak and to be heard. We were very happy with the process we followed and have received nothing but positive feedback. We had two excellent facilitators to support with the breakout sessions. Having people you trust to do that job is critical as is taking the time to run through everything and address any issues long before the sessions start. Sticking to times is critical, it does not matter who is talking.

234238239240241250Firstly we decided to focus on trade-offs as these are a great way of getting people to think about the consequences of what they are advocating for, decisions made and who they might effect rather than focusing on problems and solutions. Secondly, we split our Dialogues into two with one focused on sustainable and equitable consumption and one on sustainable and equitable production. These two topics were deliberately very broad to enable as much dialogue as possible. By having a very structured facilitation process we were able to manage the discussions without predetermining the topics.235250The main findings are detailed in the outcomes section. Discussions were facilitated using the design thinking approach and the outcomes reflect this. There was an initial component on participant's vision of what a sustainable and equitable food system might look like. This was followed with a discussion on what the barriers/trade/offs might be in achieving this vision. Finally we asked participants what might be the first steps we could take to achieve the vision.236238239240241243244246249250The Vision This is what a Sustainable Food System should include according to participants • A definition of Sustainable Food based on science, that recognizes natural production and is clear and unambiguous. • Healthy and nutritious food available at affordable prices that delivers safe and nutritious outcomes for all consumers • A food system that is equitable to all actors (in terms of economic returns, decision making power and onus to change) • Zero emissions and waste through a functioning circular economy • A food system that enhances biodiversity and improves soil and water quality. • A food system that supports socially sustainable communities • Strong Animal welfare systems • Increased consumption of healthy, nutrient rich foods • Consumption of meat and dairy (animal products) linked to nutritional guidelines • Consumers who understand the real value of food • Clear, user friendly food labelling and credible marketing claims • Proactive consumers demanding clarity on what they are eating, prioritising their health and safety. • We need to have the capacity to manage and respond to the unknown, unknowns as the food system changes rapidly. • Knowledge of the risks associated with new foods • Moving focus from “Farm to Fork” to “Soil to Gut”236238239240241243249250Barriers / Trade-Offs The following are paraphrased from the Dialogues • “The current absence of hard scientific evidence and baselines for sustainability makes it difficult to understand sustainability. This leaves room for ambiguity in what is ‘sustainable’ which erodes trust between food system actors” • “Does sustainable food have to mean more expensive food?” • “With only 37% of Irish farmers being economically viable, what might be the impact on the rural economy if food prices don’t increase? • “Terms like green, natural and sustainable have become hijacked, how can we build credibility for consumers?” • “We shouldn’t assume that all fresh and locally produced foods have the same nutritional benefit” • “Most Irish produce is targeted at the export market. What effect is Irish produce having on consumers and producers in our target markets?” • “Will promoting local and organic provide the economic returns for Irish farmers who rely on exporting 90% of what they produce”. • “How is animal welfare reflected in our measures of sustainability, if at all?” • “Are the voices of Irish farmers being engaged effectively in policy discussions and are they being given equal weight to other stakeholders”. • “What is the real price of sustainable food and will consumers be willing to pay it? If not, who will?” • “What value do consumers place on food and is this really reflected in the cost?” • “Should we tax highly processed low nutrient foods and if so, would this disproportionately affect consumers with lower incomes? Is this equitable?” • “Cheap food is a driver of food waste.” • “Ireland is taking a piecemeal approach to the Food System with multiple separate strategies and institutions doing disparate things. Do we need to take a different approach and develop a Food Systems Policy?” • “The EU’s and Ireland’s policy debate needs more input from individuals, farmers and consumers, but policy and its jargon make participation unattractive for effective engagement”. • “Is CAP a potential catalyst for more sustainable production practices or is it a barrier to them? What measures could be included in CAP (or other policies) to support farmers to engage in more sustainable practices at farm level?” • “Is decreasing the national herd the only way to simultaneously reduce emissions, increase biodiversity, improve water quality and ensure food security, both in Ireland and globally and if so, how can this be reconciled with the current agri-food growth strategy?” • “Most funding goes towards the ‘traditional’ sectors of dairy and meat. Building expertise and capacity in other sectors will take time and money.” • “Can legislation and regulation stay ahead of new product development?”236238239240241243244246248249250First Steps These are the immediate actions identified by participants in moving towards Sustainable Food Systems • Establish a fully representative Food Systems Council • Create a framework that captures what we know, engages stakeholders and addresses gaps, aiming for incremental improvement. • Develop education/awareness/behaviour change programmes for consumers as a whole (not just schools) that explain sustainable food systems from production through to consumption. • Develop a process to manage the trade-offs to ensure progress and avoid unintended consequences. • Identify the biggest problems and target those with ambition to tackle them first. • Invest in research on how we can deliver affordable sustainable food • Implement transparency in the supply chain to ensure equity to all stakeholders • Address the issue of food waste. • Sense of urgency is required, but we must bring all stakeholders along the journey. • Invest in local food systems development • Use taxation of unhealthy and unsustainable foods to finance sustainable food system initiatives • Increase funding to horticulture and other underrepresented sectors. • Raise awareness, educate and empower consumers on the 'value' of food • Greater regulation of marketing and promotion of 'sustainable' foods. • Greater investment in emerging technologies and foods to assess their sustainability credentials. • Budgets for research need to be aligned with a vision for where our food system will be in 10 years. • Refocus investment on nutrient content, quality (nutrition) and value addition and away from volume of production. • Increase the production of more nutrient dense foods by exploiting new plant varieties, better animal genetics and better crop husbandry to deliver better outcomes with minimal additional cost.237238239240241243249250The areas of divergence are listed under outcome 2 above in the list of trade-offs identified. To summarize these two key areas of divergence were noted. It was also noted that participants felt that both of these 'divergences' could be explored further and that solutions could be found. 1. Local v Global The majority of economic output from Irish farms is for the export market, yet there was a recognition that local production of safe and nutritious food for local consumption also needs to be addressed. Balancing trade-offs in the local v. global debate is a real challenge for Irish stakeholders. 2. Cost v. Value of sustainable food Does sustainable food need to be more expensive? What do we need to do to ensure producers get a fair price? What value do consumers place on food and will they be willing to pay more for sustainable food? Will the cost of sustainable food place unfair barriers to access for less well off households?

2021-04-08 09:38:25204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/7905/203

4731151212663131431221110146916110

The organizing team has selected a group of young and motivated individuals already (or ready to be) projected into the realm of food systems and provided them with a safe space to discuss, openly and creatively, the way forward for a more sustainable and resilient future. As such, both the organizing team and the participants understand the need to act with urgency and are committed, either personally or professionally, to contribute to the vision, objectives and outcomes of the Food Systems Summit. The BoT participants aim to be agents of change and wish to contribute to the outcome of the FSS. David Nabarro’s intervention during the first BoT virtual meeting clearly inspired them and helped them better understand the process behind the Summit. In the organization of the Dialogue, the BoT organizing team made sure to embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity by inviting participants from different countries, backgrounds and sectors, including but not limited to civil society, government, academia and the private sector. It must be pointed out, however, that the Dialogue has been organized and carried out with a focus on the youth and on the Middle Eastern – Mediterranean region geographically speaking. The facilitators selected were all part of the organizing team and had been briefed with attention to ensure the creation of a safe space conducive for dialogue based on respect and trust. A number of ‘principles’ for discussion were shared with the participants at the beginning of each session to foster this sense of inclusivity, mutual respect and trust. These included the need to complement the work of others, build on what the person before has said, challenge only when you have an alternative to propose, and finally seek compromise in order to reach a unifying message.The Dialogue re-grouped and focused on all the topics that were addressed during the previous four workshops, with a major focus on narratives and advocacy; knowledge, connectivity and digitalization; habitats and proximity; diversity of food systems; renewed traditions and empowered culture; affordability and true value of food. The Dialogue is part of a broader set of workshops and events organized by the Bites of Transfoodmation team that aim to take into account and discuss different aspects of the food systems, thus recognizing their complexity. Previous dialogues and workshops have focused on the topics of sustainable consumption and on the future of production, transformation and distribution. Some time has been dedicated to the unifying power of potentially divisive concepts. The final aim is to achieve a political intention of the group, in the form of a Manifesto and Lines of Action, which will take a holistic and systemic approach to food systems transformation. Yet, as the very name Bites of Transfoodmation suggests, the idea is to propose some ‘bites’ of change which are coherent to and reflect the vision of the group of young change-makers and the themes identified by the group as key. The principles of inclusivity, respect and trust were reflected in the design and roll-out of the Dialogue and have been an essential feature of the entire Bites of Transfoodmation process. The participants have not only been included in all stages of the project in a transparent and inclusive way but have been its very center. A real sense of trust has been created along the way, and this could be witnessed during the Dialogue as the participants felt they could express their views freely and openly, even when these did not necessarily reflect the views held by others.Thanks to the fact that there is a team working exclusively on the Bites of Transfoodmation project, a lot of information and knowledge sharing is able to take place both among the participants, and between the participants and the organizing team. The organizing team has ensured that various different avenues and spaces for exchange are created, both during and in the build-up to the Dialogues. This has definitely contributed to building trust as well as to keeping the momentum, engagement and commitment of the participants high. Our advice to other Convenors would be to make sure, if possible, that there is a strong point of contact between the Dialogue participants and the Convenors. This allows for participant's feedback and continued interaction after the workshops and Dialogue so that the ideas can be further refined, and knowledge further shared. Furthermore, it seems to be a valuable approach to choose participants with a diverse background in order to permit exchange about different realities, while working towards compromise and unifying elements.

Yes

234238239241243244246248250Our first four Bites of Transfoodmation workshops showed us the need for a change of narrative, with a greater emphasis on espousing diversity, whilst nurturing a culture of empowerment, reconsidering our habitats and reassessing the value of food through the lens of a true cost approach. We acknowledged that shifting the status of food from a commodity to a public good can help in contemplating its true cost and value and we recognized that a new perspective in the way to produce, process and distribute food, orientated towards achieving healthy and sustainable diets for all, will lead to profound systemic changes. Existing inequalities both in terms of access to knowledge and income often result in affordability and accessibility issues, with the risk of strengthening divisive narratives and limiting space for drawing useful lessons out of food systems in complex environments. During this Independent Dialogue, we decided to focus on the Manifesto and on some concrete projects and project ideas developed by the participants. After a short introduction, in which we recalled the journey already made together as well as the future path of this series of workshops, we created three groups around the following topics that have emerged since the beginning of the process: a) Narratives and advocacy & connectivity, knowledge, and digitalisation; b) Habitats and proximity & diversity and food systems; c) Renewed traditions and empowered culture & affordability and true value. Based on a draft version of the Manifesto, the goal was to find an inclusive, common and unifying language suitable for the whole group. After the group discussions, participants had the opportunity to present their projects to the plenary, in order to show possible future pathways and provide concrete lines of action.235The structure of this fifth workshop was a little bit different from the previous ones, because we decided to focus on the Manifesto and on the participants' own ideas and projects - and therefore did not envisage the participation of external speakers. What was important for us, was to allow the participants to really focus on some paragraphs of the Manifesto, try to project themselves into the future and find a common and unifying language. We perceived that during the groups discussions, where the main topics that emerged during the Bites of Transfoodmation journey were discussed, participants had a hard time sticking to the themes of their discussion group. Indeed, due to the interconnectedness of food systems, there was the tendency to include concepts already covered in other paragraphs. This showed us even more that a holistic approach is needed to truly understand and address pathways towards the future of food systems. Nevertheless, the groups managed to stick to their chapters, and eventually the Manifesto draft was modified to suit the whole group’s wishes, feelings and ideals. After the break-out sessions, participants that developed some concrete projects able to transform current food systems in line with the lines of action of the Manifesto, were able to make some elevator pitches to present their ideas to the plenary of the group. This opportunity was great for those presenting their projects, as well as for the rest of the audience, as the first could show their ideas and achievements and get a feedback, and the latter could listen, get inspired and connect for future ideas. Moreover, the presentations really allowed the whole group to see their ideas and visions gaining shape and be applied on the ground, in a true and feasible way. Certainly, through these projects, the Manifesto reconfirmed itself and gained even more legitimacy, as it allows for concrete and collective action.236238239241243246247248250Group 1: Narratives and Advocacy + Connectivity, knowledge and digitalization First of all, the group talked about narratives and advocacy. It underlined the importance of allowing for a multitude of narratives. More specifically, the group highlighted the need to change the binary nature of plant-based diets, where eating meat is classified as being bad and unhealthy and eating plants is good and healthy. Indeed, the group suggested that narratives should be inclusive, in the sense that nobody is obliged to consume or give up on something, and that a plant-based diet could for instance be complementary to any person's nutritional traditions, habits and culture. The idea is to open up the nutritional options and to improve accessibility of these kinds of diets. Secondly, the group talked about connectivity, knowledge and digitalization. It suggested that, in order to shift our food systems, on one hand we need knowledge coming from family, school, etc. to know how and what to consume and on the other hand we need data to improve the provision of food in terms of diversification and personalization to make it more accessible. Indeed, by quantifying and analyzing the impacts of every single sector in the food system it is possible to understand the connection and correlation among all the sectors. The group also underlined the importance at the governmental and city level to provide knowledge through school/workshop/etc. to make sure there is easy access to information about food systems.Another proposal of the group envisaged the creation of a platform both connecting and informing different people about food systems, personalized diets, origins of food, etc. using a simple language that allows everybody to access the information.236238239241243246248250Group 2: Habitats and proximity + diversity of systems Participants were asked to discuss two topics: the need to rethink our habitats by linking sustainability with social proximity, thus leading to a positive cycle of citizenship, and the narrative of understanding diversity as the main unifying factor of food systems of the future. Participants highlighted the presence of physical and cognitive invisible walls, somehow separating the rural and the urban world, and the need to tear these walls down to allow for a space of social proximity in which producers, transformers and consumers are constantly connected with feedback flowing easily in both directions. While the physical barrier was perceived as more explicit, which can partially be explained by unaware urban planning in terms of the chosen location of infrastructures (corporations, supermarkets, food processing plants, etc.), the cognitive barrier is linked to the predominant narrative that food production is only meant for rural areas. They considered that new technologies can play a predominant role in breaking down these invisible walls since, through new ideas and possibilities, they would be able to change the perception that food can only be produced on empty, flat spaces. Another proposition made was to recreate stronger linkages with per-urban areas and suburbs through the establishment of food/nutrition corridors between cities and their surrounding areas. Moreover, big corporations were seen as key actors in this separation and therefore participants suggested that the normative framework should address this issue. Finally, the group suggested that everyone, architects, civil engineers, lawyers and many other professions should be involved in the process of creating new spaces for production, exchanges, transportation, transformation, etc. Participants stressed the importance of promoting new forms of cross-sectoral professional careers as a means of promoting social change and allowing for a positive cycle of citizenship.236238239241246248249251Group 3: Renewed traditions and empowered culture + Affordability and true value The group discussed two subjects which were outcomes of previous workshops : one about how renewed traditions can ensure a culture of empowerment, the second about how affordability is linked and relates to the true value of food, and eventually to seeing food as a public good. First, about renewed traditions, the group underlined the importance of taking the best out of both traditions and innovations, as it would reduce the fear of losing something. It highlighted that while intergenerational dialogues are key, the voice of the youth should be strengthened in decision-making arenas, in a real and honest manner, in particular when it comes to taking actions with a sense of urgency. Second, about affordability and true value, the group highlighted the need not only to account for the true value of food in the consumption price but also at each stage of the chain, redistributing at the same time accountability and positive side-effects across the chain in a fairer manner. The link between true value and well-being was underlined and the need for providing consumers with more and more easily accessible information highlighted. The group also talked about the multi-dimensionality of affordability which not only refers to the financial capacity of a consumer to access a good but also embeds awareness, education, information,… eventually relating to inequalities. It finally stressed the necessity of taking actions in a collective and holistic manner and not only individually.237238239241243244246247248250251In the first group dealing with narratives, advocacy, knowledge, connectivity and digitalization there were only two points of divergence. First, some participants suggested that the narrative of reducing meat consumption in order to have a more sustainable impact on food systems is a western narrative mostly related to urban areas, while some others considered it to be interesting and feasible on a global scale. Moreover, some participants were more convinced than others about the importance of data in the transformative process: some considered that data are a “must” to tackle the major structural challenges of current food systems, while others believed that change must also originate from traditional knowledge sharing (school, education, workshops, etc.) In the second group, discussing about habitats, proximity, and diversity of food systems, there was the need to solidify what we mean by the term “diversity”. Indeed, participants seemed to have different interpretations and eventually, a clearer understanding of the concept of “embracing diversity” was not reached. Moreover, a few participants were not convinced by the fact that a more specialized production might lead to more diverse systems allowing for personalized diets. In the third group, dealing with renewed traditions, empowered culture, affordability and true value, the group did not have any sharp contention. Slight divergences (which were then settled through a common understanding) included the importance of intergenerational discussions versus the importance of strengthening the voice of the youth and the understanding of true value as inherently spanning across the chain or not.

2021-04-09 08:16:48204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/4170/203

162

We organized the dialogue based on all the principles of engagement. We invited stakeholders from most food systems stakeholders in the South East Asia region and beyond, from farmers to academics and activists. We emphasized the importance of respect throughout all processes and chose prominent leaders to be the facilitators at each table.The dialogue reflected the urgency, respect, diversity, trust, and other principles. This manifested in the feedback we received during and after the dialogue, which was very positive, and a wish to continue the dialogues and implement the solutions.We would advise following the principles of engagements and the FSD method. We have realized it helps create a very positive and productive process

Yes

234240243244245246248249250251The dialogue was held to provide a multi-stakeholder platform for stakeholders to explore various existing and emerging approaches that have the potential to deliver nature-positive solutions at scale and encourage collaborative action in the ASEAN region and beyond and to directly inform the United Nations Food Systems Summit process. The food systems dialogue brought together state and non-state actors, to include policy research institutions, universities, farmer organizations, agri-business, agricultural financiers, civil society, policy makers, oversight bodies and the media. The Food Systems Dialogue program will feature plenary sessions and theme-based break-away sessions. The dialogue will provide time and space for informal discussion groups, enabling participants to engage fully. Social media, including Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, will form part of the communications strategy to promote the dialogue as well as disseminate proceedings and outcomes.235240243244245246248249250251This was part of a 3-part series of 90 minutes each via zoom: 1) Ideas for Innovation; 2) Connecting Innovation Ideas with Food Systems; 3) Creating Tangible Recommendations for the UNFSSD The major highlights: There is a link between the Food Systems Summit and COP26, which happens in November, and the Food Systems Summit in September, and we need to hand carry the outcomes of the Food Systems Summit to COP 26. Having the focus on climate and nature is key as it fits both agendas quite nicely of Food System Summit and a COP 26. When looking at the portfolio of innovations being put forward by the region, it is crucially important that both these agendas are connected as there is a very strong climate dimension that makes it relevant, both to the Food System Summit and a COP 26. There is also very much a nature link, and obviously, this discussion has been linked to the actual track three on nature positive production. COP 26 this year with the UK presidency highlights the role of nature and can be aligned with the convention for Biodiversity as well.236240243244245246248249250251Investment in innovation, and the focus on R4D in the region - investment going into agricultural research and development, which is not necessarily aligned to climate or nature, as much as it should be, need to shift into climate foster nature positive pathways. It's not just reorienting investment; it's also increasing the investment to agricultural research and development, especially in under-investing countries. There is a need to address the innovation gap and more investments into innovation.236240243244245246248249250251Institutions – invest in the institutions that we have set up for innovation, even national institutions or international institutions, or set up to facilitate those innovation processes. We need to rethink the institutions, what they set up to achieve the SDGs, how they can be realigned, do we need new institutions, and think about coming together to create them.236240243244245246248249250251Scaling up innovation - when we talk about innovation, is it something new and useful? It can be a new idea, or it can be a new way of doing things. There are lots of excellent ideas out there, but why are they not being scaled? And this could be because there is no conducive policy environment and sufficient investment.236240243244245246248249250251Inclusive and evidence-based dialogue - we will not succeed unless we talk to each other, especially talking to people outside of our comfort zones, who are crucial for achieving scale. We need to bring people together on these innovations, their ideas, talk about complex issues that we might have because only by talking and having an open dialogue can we move forward.237240243244245246248249250251Not many areas of divergence were brought up due to time constraints. Participants highlighted the importance of convergence of the two agendas, the Food System Summit and a COP 26. Some critical areas of divergence that involve trade-offs: 1) The tension between resiliency and affordability in order to scale food systems especially in light of population growth. 2) The tension between highly technological food systems vs. going back to nature and the multiple benefits in terms of health and environmental of diversification. 3) The trade-offs between consumers’ access (buying capability) and producers’ income.

2021-04-09 15:20:10205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/5003/177

132066132107159288205673244015802229000012216435331406116128

The first workshop of this Swiss National Food Systems Summit Dialogue (FSSD) was held virtually on 23 March 2021. It brought together more than 130 representatives from many sectors along the food value chains. During this event, the participants took part in BREAK-OUT GROUP DISCUSSIONS on topics related to food systems transformation. These discussions constituted the core of the event. In order to build on each other's experiences, proposals and contributions and to promote a lively interaction, the discussion groups consisted of stakeholders who had SPECIFIC EXPERTISE on the topic discussed in their group, but also of participants who could bring a DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE. Each participant in the workshop was allocated to a discussion group prior to the event. The group discussions brought together a wide range of stakeholders and allowed for a CONSTRUCTIVE AND FRUITFUL EXCHANGE. The CHATHAM HOUSE RULE applied to all the discussions in the break-out groups, in order to create a safe space for exchange in which NEW IDEAS could be generated and BOLD SOLUTIONS found. In addition, participants were reminded that mutual respect is the basis of a true dialogue, and that it involves listening and being open to different points of view. The stakeholders were encouraged to be actively engaged in the workshop throughout the event. Besides the break-out group discussions, they were invited to submit questions and comments in the chat of the virtual platform during the plenary sessions.In order to address the challenges, potential and vulnerabilities of our food systems through a HOLISTIC APPROACH, MULTI-STAKEHOLDER GROUP DISCUSSIONS were organised. The topics discussed in each break-out group were formulated in the form of short, ambitious statements, to be realised by 2030. In their exchange, the participants were asked to think of concrete actions allowing to achieve the statement of their group, bearing in mind potential synergies and trade-offs. The eight statements – discussed in ten groups – were developed on the basis of the FIVE ACTION TRACKS (ATs) OF THE FSS, and of the food systems approach of the 2030 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY put out for public consultation by the Swiss Federal Council, the executive branch of the federal government, until 4 February 2021, as well as of other strategies of the Federal Council. With its 2030 Sustainable Development Strategy, the Federal Council sets out how it intends to implement the 2030 AGENDA FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT over the next ten years. The strategy draws on the UN Agenda 2030 and its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as a reference framework. In this way, the dialogue is contributing to the discussion in Switzerland on the development and implementation of various policy instruments. We based the National FSSD of Switzerland on the 2030 Agenda and the Swiss Federal Council’s Sustainable Development Strategy, because we are convinced that food systems are essential levers linked to all the SDGs and that they have a transversal impact on each of them. The transformation of food systems is essential to the achievement of all the SDGs.N/A

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251In preparation for the Food Systems Summit (FSS) in September 2021, Switzerland decided to implement a MULTI-STAKEHOLDER FOOD SYSTEMS SUMMIT DIALOGUE (FSSD) AT NATIONAL LEVEL. This Dialogue will take place in THREE STAGES, from March to June 2021. Through this innovative approach, interested actors will have the opportunity to contribute to the FSS by discussing their roles within their food systems, reflecting on new forms of joint action, and getting involved in building the food systems of the future. The first workshop of this Swiss National FSSD was held virtually on 23 March 2021. Under the title "From Challenges to Actions", it brought together more than 130 REPRESENTATIVES FROM MANY SECTORS ALONG THE FOOD VALUE CHAINS, with the aim to address the challenges, potential and vulnerabilities of our food systems through a holistic approach, and to discuss concrete actions to support the transformation of food systems in Switzerland. For this purpose, the participants were invited to engage in BREAK-OUT GROUP DISCUSSIONS on a specific topic of importance for the transformation of our food systems. These discussions constituted the core of the event. The EIGHT TOPICS proposed for this first workshop were: 1) Sustainable food environment; 2) Sustainable food demand and sustainable diets; 3) Sustainable production; 4) Climate change mitigation; 5) Adaptation to environmental changes, resilience and food security; 6) Food wastage (avoidable waste and losses); 7) Socio-economic dimensions of the agri-food sector; and 8) Entrepreneurship, innovation, science and technology. These topics were formulated in the form of short statements, describing an ambitious situation to be realised within ten years and serving as a common goal for the discussion group. In their exchange, the participants were asked to think of CONCRETE ACTIONS to be undertaken by themselves IN THE NEXT THREE YEARS in order to achieve the statement assigned to their group by 2030, bearing in mind the synergies and trade-offs inherent to this transformation. The eight statements – discussed in ten groups – were developed on the basis of the FIVE ACTION TRACKS (ATs) OF THE FSS, and of the food systems approach of the 2030 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY put out for public consultation by the Swiss Federal Council, the executive branch of the federal government, until 4 February 2021, as well as of other strategies of the Federal Council. In this way, the dialogue also contributes to the discussion in Switzerland on the development and implementation of various policy instruments. This workshop was the first step in the process of the multi-stakeholder National FSSD of Switzerland, which provides us with a unique opportunity to support the discussion on food and agriculture in the country. In a second stage, in May 2021, a series of “City Dialogues” will be organised in three linguistic regions of the country to address possible solutions at local level. In a third and last stage, on 8 June 2021, a final workshop will aim at identifying pathways towards sustainable food systems by 2030 and discussing possible commitments from the different stakeholders. The group discussions in the workshop held on 23 March brought together a wide range of stakeholders and allowed for a constructive and fruitful exchange. The results and conclusions reached in these discussions will be addressed in more depth in the next stages of the FSSD.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The GROUP DISCUSSIONS of the workshop allowed for a constructive and fruitful exchange, in a pleasant atmosphere, and reached the following main results and conclusions: (1) One major point that came out of the discussion was the necessity of a greater COHERENCE BETWEEN FOOD RELATED POLICIES, or even of ONE FOOD SYSTEMS POLICY encompassing agriculture, environment, nutrition and public health. The participants welcomed the development of the ACTION PLAN AGAINST FOOD WASTAGE. Addressing resilience, they supported a POLITICAL VISION with a ROADMAP for transparent partnerships and exchange of information. In general, they were in favour of a BROADER CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ON SUSTAINABILITY, a PARADIGM SHIFT TOWARDS MORE HOLISTIC APPROACHES and CIRCULAR ECONOMY. An independent office to assess sustainability along the value chains was proposed. (2) POLICY FRAMEWORKS, such as the Swiss Agricultural Policy, are key in shaping our food systems. THE GOVERNMENT/PUBLIC AUTHORITIES should make INFORMATION available to citizens, and set up POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE INCENTIVES (re-orientation of agricultural subsidies, support to catering establishments for sustainable meals, or carbon tax). PUBLIC PROCUREMENT could be a powerful lever. MINIMUM/MAXIMUM REQUIREMENTS and BANS could complement these measures. Finally, the government could provide STEWARDSHIP in launching a long-term DIALOGUE amongst actors. At INTERNATIONAL level, policy-makers should further seek dialogue with countries from which goods are imported. (3) Assuming that INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY is crucial to bring about change, in a bottom-up and inclusive approach, AWARENESS RAISING, EDUCATION, POSITIVE EXAMPLES and TRANSPARENT INFORMATION AND DATA can be decisive. CHILDREN and YOUNG PEOPLE should acquire good habits (limitation of marketing targeting them, promotion of comparatively more sustainable foods in canteens, or learning journeys to farms) as well as ADULTS (labelling, bonus points card for sustainable products, or direct sales from local agriculture). TOOLS could be developed to better assess the edibility of products and help recycle. In addition, participants recognised that the FOOD ENVIRONMENT AND SUPPLY influence our consumption. The PSYCHOLOGY and BEHAVIOUR of consumers must be taken into account to better understand potential resistances. One limiting factor in this transformation is the FINANCIAL MEANS, especially for lower-income citizens. (4) Currently, FOOD IS TOO CHEAP. The participants called for the TRUE COST OF FOOD, for instance through a CARBON TAX, and for more TRANSPARENCY along the value chains. They debated if such measures should apply to Swiss products, or to importations as well. The DISTRIBUTION OF THE VALUE ADDED along the value chains should be more equitable. In particular, FARMERS play a central role in sustainable food systems, and they should be further EMPOWERED, through different approaches (cooperatives, “radical-local” agriculture, solidarity agriculture, rural-urban systems, or micro-diversified systems). From an ECONOMIC perspective, investments and market opportunities are necessary for transforming our food systems. (5) Regarding FOOD WASTAGE, a great potential exists in the retailing, processing and agricultural sectors (FOOD DONATIONS, processing and marketing SURPLUSES, BY-PRODUCTS and “UNAESTHETIC” ITEMS, exchange PLATFORMS, use as ANIMAL FEEDS, or increased COORDINATION ALONG VALUE CHAINS). Bringing unsold food on the market at reduced prices offers multiple wins. To fight food waste, positive INCENTIVES (challenges and awards) and negative ones (fees) could be implemented. (6) SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND INNOVATION – including practical and intellectual (systems) innovations – should be promoted, and their results better DISSEMINATED. The use of NEW TECHNOLOGIES AND DIGITALISATION should be considered as opportunities. A modification of the STANDARDS in the processing industry could lead to technical improvements on farms. Exchange between entrepreneurs and investors must be facilitated, and a MONITORING & EVALUATION AND REPORTING SYSTEM would help the financial sector carry out analyses. EXPERIMENTAL LABORATORIES could participate in alleviating negative anticipations from actors. (7) To conclude, the participants called for a closer COLLABORATIONS BETWEEN ACTORS. Through their proximity with local populations, CITIES can (re-)build the link between URBAN CONSUMERS and RURAL PRODUCERS. The CATERING sector could team up with FARMERS committed to sustainable production. In addition, one of the groups proposed the creation of a NATIONAL FOOD DAY, which could be broadcasted and serve as a showcase for food systems transformation.236238241243244245246248249250251TOPIC 1: SUSTAINABLE FOOD ENVIRONMENT In this group, stakeholders discussed how the food environment in Switzerland could become more sustainable, involving stakeholders in the processing, retail and catering industries, and enabling consumers to eat according to the recommendations of the Swiss Food Pyramid. I. PRIORITY ACTIONS (1) The participants declared that COLLABORATION is paramount for the transformation of our food systems, and that a PARADIGM SHIFT is needed to scale up existing solutions. (2) The stakeholders stated that currently FOOD IS TOO CHEAP. We should determine the TRUE COST OF FOOD and enhance TRANSPARENCY about the effects of food consumption. The DISTRIBUTION OF THE VALUE ADDED along the value chains should become more equitable. (3) INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY AND BEHAVIOUR are key to bring about changes. AWARENESS RAISING, EDUCATION and the communication of POSITIVE EXAMPLES are important activities. Citizens should have their say in the definition of sustainable products, including young people. However, we should not transfer the whole responsibility on younger generations. (4) Consumers must be able to take INFORMED DECISIONS. Transparent DATA AND INFORMATION, as well as the results of RESEARCH and INNOVATION, must be made available to them, for instance through “traffic light system” and labels on products. Amongst other measures: direct marketing by producers, including in urban areas; implementation of a solidarity agriculture; a better orientation of the local agricultural production on the market; or creation of an independent office for assessing sustainability along the value chains. (5) The GOVERNMENT/PUBLIC AUTHORITIES should be responsible to require that the necessary INFORMATION is provided to consumers, to make UNSUSTAINABLE PRODUCTS MORE EXPENSIVE than sustainable ones, and if necessary to BAN the former. A positive INCENTIVE could be the support to public catering establishments that provide sustainable meals. POLICY FRAMEWORKS, such as the Swiss agricultural policy, can play a key role. (6) Finally, several SYNERGIES and COLLABORATIVE ACTIONS, such as: increased exchange between actors, including at political level; or communicating that healthy diets tend to also be more sustainable. II. POTENTIAL CHALLENGES (1) Several TRADE-OFFS and TENSIONS were mentioned. Through advertising and subsidising foods such as sugar and meat, the State is viewed by some as an indirect supporter of unhealthy diets. Other such examples: an agriculture oriented towards production of food for people VS towards profits and remuneration; an agriculture based on human labour VS on technologies; or the political power of major agribusinesses VS of the civil society. The labelling and packaging of products can influence – positively or negatively – the choice of the consumers, but is not enough to (re-)orientate our consumption patterns. (2) The participants came up with several RESPONSES. Agriculture needs both human labour and technologies. Data availability and the application of information technologies are crucial. The power within our food systems should be better shared and the value added better distributed. (3) Finally, the participants also formulated QUESTIONS that remained OPEN. Who are the main drivers in today's food systems? Is it the marketing-driven processing industry, the technologies or the power relations? In addition, how much public intervention, in terms of policy framework, is needed for the market to re-orient itself?236239240241243244246247248249250251TOPIC 2: SUSTAINABLE FOOD DEMAND AND SUSTAINABLE DIETS In this group, stakeholders discussed how to make people better aware of the importance of sustainable diets – in their environmental, socio-cultural, healthy and nutritional dimensions – and how to encourage them to better observe the recommendations of the Swiss Food Pyramid. I. PRIORITY ACTIONS (1) The participants underlined the necessity to ensure COHERENCE BETWEEN THE VARIOUS POLICIES RELATED TO FOOD. They specifically proposed that Switzerland develop a 2050 FOOD POLICY, encompassing aspects of agriculture, nutrition, environment and public health, and therefore exploiting SYNERGIES between them. (2) EDUCATION AND AWARENESS RAISING are key. The participants expressed their preference to teach good habits to CHILDREN and YOUNG PEOPLE from the outset, rather than to strive to get new ones later in life. Such measures include: promotion of comparatively more sustainable foods (fresh fruits/vegetable VS animal proteins in the canteens or “apple automats”); food & nutrition courses and “taste education”; learning journeys to farms; or limitation of marketing targeted at children. ADULTS, as well, should realise how their diet impacts both themselves and the planet, in a holistic manner. INFORMATION enabling comparison of food items should be available and easily understandable – as many labels co-exist, such comparison is still difficult. Consumers should be sensitised about the added value of local agriculture – in terms of environmental impact, animal welfare and job creation – and made aware of the resulting production costs. (3) CITIES, through their proximity with LOCAL POPULATIONS, as signatories of the Milan Urban Food Policy Pact, are major players to bring about changes in practice and to re-build the link between urban consumers and rural producers. (4) Finally, participants addressed FOOD DEMAND, but also brought up issues related to FOOD SUPPLY, such as: responsibility of the retailers in offering more sustainable alternatives; collaborations between the catering sector and farmers committed to sustainable production; or innovative start-ups guaranteeing multiple wins for multiple actors when they simultaneously bring on the market unsold food at reduced prices, fight food waste, and raise awareness. II. POTENTIAL CHALLENGES (1) In terms of FOOD RELATED POLICIES, there is a need for clear targets and long-term objectives, which integrate the different interests and perspectives at stake, and which take into account the specificities of the Swiss context – for instance, we need to deal with the fact that an important part of the Swiss territory is not arable. On a related note, the TEMPORAL ASPECT of the transformation must be fully recognised – changes need to take place gradually. (2) The VALUE OF FOOD and its MARKET PRICE should be re-thought. There is a need to ensure a fair and equitable remuneration of all actors – knowing that the expenditure by Swiss households on food are low in international comparison. (3) COLLABORATION SHOULD BE SOUGHT ALL ALONG THE VALUE CHAINS, including to promote a better understanding BETWEEN PRODUCERS AND CONSUMERS. Consumers should be actively involved in the transformation of our food systems. Two examples of trade-offs: the desire to have a diversity of products in winter VS our climate impact and seasonality; or the need to reduce our consumption of meat and sugar for environmental and health reasons VS the necessity to find alternatives and ensure that affected farmers are adequately accompanied in the transition.236240243244245246248249250251TOPIC 3: SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTION Two groups discussed how plant and animal productions, as well as the processing, retailing and catering sectors, could promote a more sustainable agriculture, with regard to local conditions, biodiversity, animal welfare, nutrients, natural resources, as well as circularity. I. PRIORITY ACTIONS (1) The CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK OF SUSTAINABILITY should be broadened. Four areas of sustainability are needed: environment, social, health and animal welfare. (2) It is necessary to strengthen the application of INNOVATIVE IDEAS, to support the use of NEW TECHNOLOGIES and to promote DIGITALISATION. Science must be prepared to develop new approaches without fear of not being able to come up with ready/complete solutions right from the beginning. (3) PUBLIC PROCUREMENT is key to enhance this process by supporting innovative projects in order to enable transformation in education, collective catering, public canteens and raising awareness among the youth. (4) A democratically developed COMMON FOOD AND AGRICULTURE POLICY is required, involving all actors of the food systems while building on critical thinking and independent research. Merging agricultural and health policies could be a crucial step. (5) INCENTIVES in terms of policy measures on the information level are crucial. The focus must not lie on production only, but enhance dialogue with consumers as well as thinking in terms of VALUE CHAINS. Bringing all actors together can create solutions that reach across the value chain. The concept of STEWARDSHIP was mentioned, meaning that the government could create a system for long-term dialogue and knowledge exchange among all stakeholders. (6) In order to consume differently, a pilot project on TRUE COST OF FOOD AND TRANSPARENCY must be launched. In addition, in order to enhance market power of farmers, their margins should be increased, and retailers should create a market for food that, because of its appearance, would not normally be consumed by people. To support the change towards more sustainable production, food production must have an adequate prize. (7) MEAT AND DAIRY PRODUCTIONS need to be reduced, as well as locally adapted and site-appropriate. 8) Some participants pointed out that sustainable production could be promoted if access to land and farms were made easier for WOMEN. Several studies show that a higher proportion of women in agriculture can lead to more sustainability. II. POTENTIAL CHALLENGES (1) The groups identified TRADE-OFFS between production, environmental protection, climate and animal welfare. In addition, society demands more organic farming. The first step requires to admit that such trade-offs exist and to name them. They need to be discussed and prioritized with all stakeholders. (2) Although large parts of the agricultural land in Switzerland is grassland, MEAT AND DAIRY PRODUCTIONS are not locally adapted and site-appropriate. The transition for farmers to sustainable production is difficult. In addition, meat consumption is still culturally very desirable and the share from sustainable production is too small. (3) Concerning BIODIVERSITY promotion, it was discussed that the measures taken are often not sufficient to achieve the goals set. Farmers need to be provided with information on how to promote species. There is a need for an increased cooperation with farmers and consideration by the agricultural policy, so that biodiversity services are rewarded. When designing concrete measures, we also need measurable figures (DATA) and COMMITMENTS from the stakeholders.236238239240241243244245246247248249250TOPIC 4: CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION In two groups, stakeholders discussed how to reduce the greenhouse gas (GHG) footprint of the domestic final food demand along the whole value chain in Switzerland and abroad, as well as the GHG emissions of the domestic agricultural production, acknowledging that this transformative process should ensure fair socio-economic conditions to affected actors. I. PRIORITY ACTIONS (1) Actors along the value chains should engage their INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY, in a bottom-up approach. We need to CHANGE OUR CONSUMPTION PATTERNS, rather than our agricultural practices – the participants regretted that the impact of food consumption often remains unclear. In their view, EDUCATION, KNOWLEDGE and AWARENESS RAISING are the most appropriate means, including: sustainability labelling of products; promotion of cheaper and/or weekly vegetarian menus in canteens; sensitisation to seasonality; or cooking course for children. However, individual responsibility, though important, is not sufficient. Minimal requirements, or even bans, should be envisaged. The psychological mechanisms of consumers must be considered to understand potential resistances. (2) One major activities proposed by one of the groups is the creation of a NATIONAL FOOD DAY, which would highlight good practices – communicating on WHAT WE MAY AND CAN DO. This event could: take place in schools, canteens and restaurants, and be BROADCASTED; constitute an annual stocktaking on food systems transformation; help exchange about sustainable products; or provide tips against food waste. (3) The participants identified additional actions, such as: OPTIMISATION of existing processes (circular economy); INCENTIVES (bonus points card for sustainable products); DIRECT MARKETING; a modification of the STANDARDS in the processing industry, which could lead to TECHNICAL IMPROVEMENTS ON FARMS; or increased TRANSDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH. (4) At economic level, a CARBON TAX and other measures aiming at setting the TRUE COST OF FOOD should be implemented. The participants debated if such measures should apply only to Swiss products, or also to importations, and how the UN could play a role. To be successful, these efforts require the endorsement of the whole society and the establishment of adequate framework conditions by PUBLIC AUTHORITIES. Public procurements could act as levers, and offer a safe market for producers. II. POTENTIAL CHALLENGES (1) A COMMON UNDERSTANDING and WELL-DEFINED OBJECTIVES are necessary. The setting of system boundaries is particularly challenging. Actions must be informed by SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. (2) INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY is important, but not sufficient. How much are citizens concerned with these issues? Without any economic incentives, are we ready to modify our consumption patterns and habits? The SOCIAL DIMENSION of sustainability is essential. For instance, meat consumption can have a negative environmental and health impact, but also bears a cultural signification for many. (3) The CARBON TAX must be implemented in a fair manner and prove effective. A compensation mechanism should be put in place for low-income citizens. On the other hand, some participants pointed out that citizens who can afford to pay for it will continue to burden the environment. (4) Finally, in terms of production, SPECIFICITIES of each country must be fully acknowledged. An important part of Switzerland is made of mountain and hill areas, which are not or hardly suitable for crop production. Animal production makes possible to exploit these areas.236242243244246247248249250TOPIC 5: ADAPTATION TO ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES, RESILIENCE AND FOOD SECURITY In this group, stakeholders discussed how the Swiss food system could become more adaptive to the consequences of global warming and to other environmental challenges, and more resilient to crises and shocks, while ensuring food security and nutrition for present and future generations. I. PRIORITY ACTIONS (1) In the overall, the participants perceived Switzerland as comparatively better placed in terms of resilience. However, the COVID-19 crisis showed that we are part of an interconnected system. We need a POLITICAL VISION, with a ROADMAP that foresees TRANSPARENT PARTNERSHIPS and the EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION, to allow for long-term planning. This supports FOOD SECURITY, which can be managed through domestic production and imports. (2) Regarding LOCAL PRODUCTION, we need to establish micro-diversified systems, and foster their INNOVATION. In addition, we need to further develop RURAL-URBAN systems. On-farm innovations must move towards standardised fair production. Exchanges between entrepreneurs and investors must be facilitated to encourage societal innovations. Exchange platforms would make possible to share information about sustainable food entrepreneurship. Improving productivity could allow for profitable soybean production in a small region like Switzerland, while improving the quality of the product with regard to climate shocks. (3) CARBON reduction and BIODIVERSITY must be considered within diversified micro-systems of local agriculture around cities. In this, we need to move forward with technological as well as practical and intellectual innovations (systems innovations). SOIL CARBON SEQUESTRATION could play a decisive role – this approach, already partly implemented in Switzerland, needs to be accompanied by research. Transparent exchanges between different actors (NGOs, producers, politicians, entrepreneurs, etc.) must be promoted. With regard to biodiversity, the participants highlighted the access to, and conservation of, GENETIC RESOURCES. Finally, Switzerland could better address FOOD LOSS AND WASTE. II. POTENTIAL CHALLENGES (1) Analysing costs and opportunities to reduce waste implied KNOWLEDGE OF THE SYSTEM and the EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION AND DATA in a transparent way. Participants also stressed the need for a COMMON VISION, rather than working at micro level. If everyone aligned with the 2030 AGENDA, it would be a decisive step in the right direction. A vision should be worked on and a roadmap created based on an analysis of risks and opportunities, taking into account Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance (ESG) aspects. Inconsistencies in policies need to be addressed. Finally, synergies between DIVERSITY and CARBON REDUCTION are areas where we need to work with research. In terms of GENETIC RESOURCES, some of the stakeholders underlined the obstacles they face in relation to patents and seed market rules, and argued that these issues should not be addressed at the Swiss national level, but at least at the European regional level. (2) Some QUESTIONS REMAINED OPEN: What synergies should be sought to support diversified and interconnected rural-urban systems? Is a Swiss 2030 Agenda linked to food systems, which are highly complex, feasible? How can we introduce follow-up measures? How can we achieve a virtuous circle that brings information from the Swiss rural-urban circuit? Is it necessary to define a framework for monitoring the activities of the different actors?236238239240241242243246247248249250TOPIC 6: FOOD WASTAGE (AVOIDABLE WASTE AND LOSSES) In this group, stakeholders discussed how to reduce avoidable food waste in Switzerland and avoidable food looses along the value chains of food consumed in Switzerland – ensuring that food produced in Switzerland and abroad reaches Swiss consumers. I. PRIORITY ACTIONS (1) The participants welcomed the development of a NATIONAL ACTION PLAN against food wastage, and expressed their satisfaction that progress was being made in this regard. (2) There is still a great potential at retailing level, as well as in the processing and agricultural sectors, for FOOD DONATIONS. Food bank organisations have been working with retailers for a long time, but awareness raising amongst employees is still necessary. SURPLUSES and BY-PRODUCTS could be made more visible, and a related MARKET should be created, for instance via a publicly accessible PLATFORM to know where to pick up/save items. Innovation and research would allow to further develop existing platforms. In addition, the potential for FEEDING ANIMALS should be exploited (whey proteins instead of soy proteins). Finally, COORDINATION ALONG VALUE CHAINS could be improved, for instance through automatic IT systems ensuring that suppliers only deliver when stocks in the supermarket have decreased, and that factories only produce when the demand signals it. SURPLUSES could be PROCESSED (tomato sauce or broth), including for awareness-raising, by volunteers or schools. (3) The population can be reached through AWARENESS RAISING and INFORMATION CAMPAIGNS (best-before dates). Vocational/professional trainings and basic education could be good entry points. SYSTEMIC ANALYSES are needed to gain a better understanding of the causes of waste in households. TOOLS could also be developed to make it easier to assess whether products are still edible (packaging that changes colour when the product turns bad), and apps to help consumers recycle. (4) Finally, INCENTIVES should be used, such as through a "No Food Waste Neighbourhood" challenge and awards (POSITIVE) or food waste fees at households level (NEGATIVE). II. POTENTIAL CHALLENGES (1) Fighting food waste requires the BUY-IN OF THE POPULATION. As an example, a small restaurant can decide to reduce its reserves and stock up with leftover bread from a nearby bakery. But in doing so, it takes the risk to run out of some foods offered on the menu. To clarify, a direct contact with customers is important. (2) A lot of potential exists in FOOD RESCUE, especially on farms (vegetables that do not meet the quality standards of the retailers). However, one of the limiting factors for this in Switzerland are the buyers, and logistics are complex. Overall, flexibility is needed. If SURPLUSES – typically from the agricultural production – are sold through ALTERNATIVE CHANNELS, this can have an impact on the market, resulting in a reduced demand for food supplied through "usual" channels. Participants also recognized that local PROCESSING of surpluses currently proves to be not profitable, but can contribute to raise awareness. In order to process BY-PRODUCTS for human consumption, substantial INNOVATION AND DEVELOPMENT are needed, and market opportunities need to be created. (3) The participants recommended that the production of “unnecessary” products should be avoided, that the RIGHT QUANTITIES be produced, and that producers benefit from FAIR PRICES. In their view, FOOD IS CURRENTLY TOO CHEAP. There is a need for more cost TRANSPARENCY and the inclusion of negative externalities (TRUE COST OF FOOD).236241243244245246247248249250TOPIC 7: SOCIO-ECONOMIC DIMENSIONS OF THE AGRI-FOOD SECTOR In this group, stakeholders discussed how actors along the food value chains could benefit from a fair distribution of the value added and decent employment conditions, in Switzerland and abroad. I. PRIORITY ACTIONS (1) TRANSPARENCY should be promoted along the value chains. Existing measures with regard to consumers could be further developed. This should include measures taken by the Federal Office for Agriculture. All costs – and thus the prices along the value chains – should be disclosed. The resulting AWARENESS could steer consumption in a more sustainable direction. Measures included: DIGITALISATION (platforms for the dissemination of information); blockchain; “radical-local” or solidarity agriculture; or international partnerships. However, various participants considered these measures not sufficient, as (too) many consumers are not enough sensitised, or simply cannot afford it FINANCIALLY. (2) In setting the TRUE COST OF FOOD, we would take into account often neglected costs, such as the unpaid work in production. This could create INCENTIVES to optimise our impact. Adjusting pricing could lead to a REDISTRIBUTION of these costs and stimulate a more sustainable consumption. (3) The transformation of our food systems – though necessary – triggers fear among actors. So-called "EXPERIMENTAL LABORATORIES", through testing new economic models and promoting dialogue, could help alleviate it. These labs should be better supported financially, and their conclusions could be DISSEMINATED. (4) The stakeholders agreed that PRODUCERS play a central role in sustainable food systems, and that they should be further EMPOWERED. At national level, they could implement a “radical-local” approach to better network and act together, and cooperatives with their own brand that would improve their negotiating position vis-à-vis wholesalers and retailers. In addition, direct payments and subsidies could be re-oriented to support more sustainable food systems. At international level, the profitability of cultivation could be strengthened through a transfer of know-how and a larger access to market, and facilitated through innovation. Policy-makers should seek dialogue with governments and producers in the countries from which goods are imported. (5) Finally, the participants shared the view that Switzerland is well-positioned in SCIENCE in general, but could do still more in RESEARCH AND INNOVATION. The location of research is an important competitive advantage, which should be promoted. There are already well-established synergies between research and business. II. POTENTIAL CHALLENGES (1) The RIGHT TO FOOD / ACCESS TO FOOD FOR ALL was confronted to PROFITABLE PRODUCTION. Direct payments to producers could be re-thought, to become more sustainable incentives, and COHERENCE BETWEEN POLICIES relating to food is needed. The participants also criticised the effect on prices induced by intermediaries and retailers (food, inputs and means of production). (2) In terms of DIETS, the group was under the impression that the criterion of HEALTH was often set against that of SUSTAINABILITY, while it should not be the case. In addition, they noted that subsidies are given to foods such as sugar and meat, which can be seen as bad incentives. (3) Finally, a trade-off was pointed out between RAPID TOP-DOWN transformation, FREE MARKET and decision-making within the SOCIETY. Major change must be supported by the population at large.236242243244245246248249250TOPIC 8: ENTREPRENEURSHIP, INNOVATION, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY This group discussed how to make the agri-food sector more sustainable, entrepreneurial and innovative, while considering its know-how and the quality of its products, applying results from scientific research and development, using the latest technologies, benefitting from digitalisation, being future-oriented and ensuring food security and nutrition. I. PRIORITY ACTIONS (1) THERE IS A NEED FOR REACHING EVERYONE, also those not already sensitised. This can be done through AWARENESS RAISING and CHANGES IN THE FOOD ENVIRONMENT. No longer offering non-sustainable products, labelling products in terms of sustainability and true cost accounting, organising exhibitions/informative events, creating campaigns to support the consumption of locally produced food and educating people about the recommendations of the Swiss Food Pyramid can be crucial steps. (2) Often, farmers do not perceive actions and measures as opportunities but as a threat to their livelihoods. In order to achieve transformation in agriculture and trade, we need SOCIAL INNOVATION, INCENTIVES AND DIRECT CONTACT WITH FARMERS. (3) BETTER FRAMEWORK CONDITIONS ARE NEEDED at all political levels. Although there are many good initiatives at grassroots level, the political framework often has its limits (for instance: in the area of spatial planning, availability of subsidies). So that a transformation is enabled also from a financial perspective, investments from banks are pivotal, and new markets and value chains need to be generated. (4) A lot is happening at the COMMUNAL LEVEL. This shows that the transformation of food systems is a cross-sectoral challenge, not just an agricultural one. URBAN AND RURAL views need to be included equally. There is a lack of structure for exchange between cities. The federal government could promote such an exchange. (5) CREATING DIALOGUE FOR AN OVERALL POLICY ABOUT FOOD SYSTEMS: there is the need for a bundle of actions across the food system, where science and civil society are included and in exchange with practice. Participants mentioned the importance of the results of the Swiss National Research Programme "Healthy Nutrition and Sustainable Food Production" (NRP 69). The second stage of the National Food Systems Summit Dialogue (FSSD) of Switzerland, the so-called “City Dialogues”, which will allow for an increased exchange between cities, and the national campaign against food waste will highly contribute to this. (6) There is a need for a STANDARDISED MONITORING & EVALUATION AND REPORTING SYSTEM for food and biodiversity, which allows the financial sector to analyse potential beneficiaries, similar to what is being done for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This would help banks assess which companies to support. II. POTENTIAL CHALLENGES (1) There is a lack of structure for EXCHANGE BETWEEN CITIES. (2) BETTER FRAMEWORK CONDITIONS ARE NEEDED at all levels (federal, cantonal, communal) to enable transformation, in particular for responsibility and financial reasons. (3) Participants were of the opinion that lately, POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS concerning food systems, agriculture and environment had been frustrating. There is a need for a change towards a holistic food systems approach in order to actually generate solutions. (4) A large part of food is IMPORTED. How can you influence production in the countries of origin? That is much more difficult than changing domestic production. (5) The AFFORDABILITY of healthy and sustainably produced food is a challenge.237238239240241242243244245246247248249250The GROUP DISCUSSIONS of the workshop gathered more than 130 representatives, who affirmed their will to contribute to the transformation of our food systems, without denying nor shifting responsibilities to other stakeholders. Although participants tended to agree on the issues at stake, several challenges and trade-offs were identified: (1) DIFFERENT VISIONS FOR AGRICULTURE, sometimes conflicting, were expressed by the participants (an agriculture oriented towards producing food for people VS towards profits and remuneration, an agriculture based on human labour VS on technologies, the political power of major agribusinesses VS of the civil society, or the fulfilment of the right to food VS profitable production). Participants recommended an alignment on the 2030 AGENDA. Finally, given that a substantial part of our food is IMPORTED, they agreed that we can have a say on our domestic production, but wondered how we can influence foreign production methods. (2) A greater COHERENCE between policies and a HOLISTIC FOOD SYSTEMS APPROACH are sought, with clear targets and long-term objectives. Direct payments to producers could be re-thought, to provide more sustainable incentives. Better FRAMEWORK CONDITIONS are needed at all levels (federal, cantonal, communal) in order to enable transformation. (3) In the same line, the participants discussed the sustainability of ANIMAL PRODUCTION in Switzerland, considering arguments such as the importance of grasslands in the country, the suitability of our mountainous and hilly topography for animal rather than plan production, the impact of livestock on the environment and of meat consumption on health, the necessity of a locally adapted and site-appropriated agriculture, and the cultural meaning of dairy products and meat. Several groups observed that, by advertising and subsidising foods such as MEAT and SUGAR, the State could be viewed as supporting unhealthy diets. (4) The complex RELATION BETWEEN ACTORS, in particular PRODUCERS, CONSUMERS AND RETAILERS was noted. The power within our food systems should be better shared and the value added better distributed – the participants pointed out the effect on prices induced by intermediaries and retailers – but COLLABORATION should also be sought. Changes must be supported by the population at large. (5) In particular, CONSUMERS should be involved. However, in terms of DIETS, some participants were under the impression that HEALTH and SUSTAINABILITY were often set against each other, while this should not be the case. The labelling and packaging of products can influence – positively or negatively – the choice of the consumers, but is not sufficient to (re-)orientate our consumption patterns. On the contrary, some participants believed that the consumers were often overwhelmed by the wide choice on supplied products, and that retailers were in a stronger position to bring about change than consumers. It seemed to participants that INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY was not sufficient. How much are citizens concerned with these issues? Without any economic incentives, are we ready to modify our consumption patterns and habits? Finally, the (UN)AFFORDABILITY of healthy and sustainable food was identified as a challenge in transforming our dietary patterns. (6) For FARMERS, the transition to more sustainable practices is difficult, and they should be accompanied in this process, which might take place gradually. As one example, the participants argued that the measures for promoting and rewarding BIODIVERSITY services often could not achieve their goals, as farmers need to be better informed in this regard. (7) Generally, food was considered TOO CHEAP in Switzerland. Measures aiming at setting the TRUE COST OF FOOD, such as a CARBON TAX, should be introduced. However, the participants warned that it should be accompanied by a compensation mechanism for low-income citizens. In addition, some participants pointed out that this tax will not have the expected effect on citizens who can pay for it. They also debated if such measures should apply only to Swiss products, or as well to importations, and how the UN could play a role. Overall, the actors along the value chains should have a fair remuneration. (8) In several groups, DATA were considered insufficient, or uneasily available, and TRANSPARENCY lacking. As a consequence, participants stressed the need for more informed and evidence-based decisions and actions. (9) A limiting factor for FOOD RESCUE are the buyers and the complex logistics. If SURPLUSES are sold through alternative channels, this can result in a reduced demand on the "usual" market. Finally, even though the PROCESSING of surpluses is currently not profitable, it can contribute to raise awareness.

2021-04-09 20:49:31205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/4694/79

8309482243845239113431841112352612121068

Se convocó de manera amplia y pública a los sectores y partes interesadas vinculadas a los Sistemas Alimentarios en Guatemala. Se socializó de manera anticipada el contenido y objetivos de la Cumbre de Sistemas Alimentarios, como de los objetivos del desarrollo del Primer Diálogo Nacional. Se desarrolló un pre registro, para caracterizar y conocer la naturaleza de la organización, sus intereses y temas de intervención, así como las prioridades de temas en el marco de la Cumbre de Sistemas Alimentarios.El Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores en representación del gobierno de Guatemala priorizó el Eje de Acción No.1 “Garantizar el acceso a alimentos sanos y nutritivos para todos”, en el que se establecen tres subtemas (1) Hambre Cero, (2) Alimentos Nutritivos y (3) Seguridad Alimentaria. Para impulsar los procesos de diálogo intersectoriales se definieron tres grupos de trabajo (cada uno por subtema). Este fue el espacio en dónde se aplicó con mayor énfasis los principios de la convención, ya que se utilizaron los siguientes métodos: -Cada grupo se conformó con representación intersectorial publica, privada, social, academia y de productores. Esto para generar un diálogo constructivo, inclusivo, respetuoso y complementario. -Desde la primera convocatoria pública, se compartió información de la Cumbre y del Primer Diálogo Nacional. -Se motivó a que las partes interesadas propongan iniciativas de corto y mediano plazo para el fortalecimiento de los Sistemas Alimentarios de Guatemala, partiendo de lo que ya se ejecuta como país.-Por el contexto nacional e internacional, es importante realizar un ejercicio de presentación y división de grupos en las plataformas virtuales. Esto para aplicar los procesos de invitación, inclusión, desarrollo de comentarios y listados de participantes, para asegurar el registro de los Diálogos. -Por otro lado, es importante brindar las herramientas necesarias a todas las partes interesadas, para que exista una igualdad de participación y aporte de cada una de ellas.. Por ejemplo, acceso fácil a señal de internet para los representantes de sociedad civil, pueblos indígenas y mujeres.

Yes

234238243244245246247248249250251Este primer Diálogo Nacional priorizó el Eje de Acción No. 1, denominado “Garantizar el acceso a alimentos sanos y nutritivos para todos” el cual se subdivide en tres temas específicos (1) Hambre Cero, (2) Alimentos nutritivos y (3) Seguridad Alimentaria. Este tuvo como objetivo diseñar e implementar un proceso que permita a las partes interesadas intervenir en el desarrollo de vías hacia unos Sistemas Alimentarios Nacionales Sostenibles en el marco de la Cumbre de Sistemas Alimentarios, acorde a la Agenda 2030, para el Desarrollo Sostenible. Para esta primera etapa se definieron los siguientes resultados: Resultado 1: Los líderes de los grupos y las partes interesadas nacionales analizan las opciones para que los sistemas alimentarios nacionales sean inclusivos, sostenibles y resilientes de aquí al 2030. Resultado 2: Se identifican aspectos o temas vinculados en asegurar sistemas alimentarios nacionales en donde existen consensos y en donde existen desacuerdos. Resultado 3: Se identifican las oportunidades, vulnerabilidades y retos de los sistemas alimentarios Resultado 4: Se propone una estructura de participación para trabajar en conjunto en pro del desarrollo de sistemas alimentarios sostenibles. De igual manera, se desarrollaron los siguientes temas y aspectos relacionados a la Cumbre de Sistemas Alimentarios y al proceso de diálogo en sí mismo: • El proceso de Dialogo parte de la Cumbre de Sistemas Alimentarios, 2021; • La construcción de una posición de país para presentar en la Cumbre de Sistemas Alimentarios, 2021; • El fortalecimiento de los procesos que ya se están impulsando en el país y; • La integración y búsqueda de las percepciones, posiciones, acciones, opiniones y pensamientos de los participantes. Para dirigir el diálogo durante el trabajo de grupo, se desarrollaron los siguientes temas: • Contexto de los sistemas alimentarios en Guatemala; • Presentación del objetivo de cada sub tema; • Presentación de las preguntas generadoras; • Desarrollo del diálogo intersectorial y; • El desarrollo del diálogo nacional.235238243244245246247248249250251Considerando que el Primer Diálogo Nacional, metodológicamente estableció tres grupos de trabajo, se presentan las principales conclusiones de cada uno. 1) Hambre Cero: CAUSAS DEL HAMBRE: - Guatemala, por ser uno de los países con mayor índice de vulnerabilidad, está amenazado ante desastres naturales, vinculados a inundaciones y/o sequías. - Débil acceso equitativo a los servicios básicos, principalmente el agua, la vivienda y el alimento. - Falta de coordinación y sinergia entre iniciativas públicas y privadas en el nivel territorial. - Débil acceso de recurso agua para la producción y consumo. - Brecha importante en la aplicación de prácticas agrícolas entre pequeños y grandes productores. PROPÓSITO DE LOS SISTEMAS ALIMENTARIOS - Acceso al alimento de forma equitativa, de forma saludable, y culturalmente pertinente. - Incremento de la producción para el consumo y la comercialización de excedente. - Aplicación de tecnología para la producción y procesamiento de alimentos. - Fomentar el consumo de alimentos nutritivos. - La mejora de la vinculación del mercado con los pequeños productores. PROPUESTAS DE SOLUCIONES EXITOSAS Se propone fortalecer la coordinación institucional, el enfoque holístico de atención a la familia, mejoramiento de los encadenamientos productivos y de los programas de protección social, desarrollar resiliencia, y la reorientación del gasto público, y financiamiento internacional. 2) Alimentos nutritivos: ¿CÓMO LOGRAR LA SEGURIDAD ALIMENTARIA PARA GARANTIZAR EL ACCESO? - Generar alimentos sanos que se articulen con la inocuidad, la higiene, las buenas prácticas y el valor nutricional. - Fomentar una dieta saludable y de calidad. - Fortalecer la regulación generando un proceso de revisión y actualización. - Considerar incluir propuestas de políticas públicas que provengan desde los sectores sociales. ¿DÓNDE CENTRAMOS LOS ESFUERZOS? - Fomentar el acceso a la disponibilidad y variedad de alimentos nutritivos. - Fomentar la producción nacional de alimentos nutritivos. - Fortalecer los programas vinculados a la atención en los primeros 1000 días a la madre gestante, como al niño/a. - Asegurar el acceso de medios de vida para la salud. - Fortalecer la agricultura familiar. - Mejorarla atención integral de los programas del Estado, sobre todo a las transferencias condicionadas. 3) Seguridad alimentariaPRINCIPALES VULNERABILIDADES - La introducción de productos alimenticios vía el contrabando. - El inadecuado manejo de los recursos naturales: agua, suelo, bosque y desechos. - La recuperación de los conocimientos de las comunidades indígenas y campesinas en temas de producción. - El consumidor cuenta con poca información acerca de calidad e inocuidad de alimentos. - La existencia de riesgo de contaminación de alimentos en la venta al por menor a nivel local. OPORTUNIDADES - Generar estrategias de producción, almacenamiento y distribución de alimentos. - Fomentar la educación alimentaria - Promover la formalidad en los sistemas alimentarios y la propuesta del incentivo agrícola. - Reforzar las compras públicas responsables (El Estado como consumidor). - Mejorar el uso adecuado del manejo de agua, suelo y conservación de la diversidad biológica. POTENCIALIDADES - Vincular los sistemas productivos de comunidades indígenas y comunidades locales a la producción de alimentos saludables. - Fomentar las cadenas de comercialización de granos básicos.2362382432442452462472482492502511) Hambre Cero CAUSAS DEL HAMBRE: - Guatemala, por ser uno de los países con mayor índice de vulnerabilidad, está amenazado ante desastres naturales, vinculados a inundaciones y/o sequías. - Débil acceso equitativo a los servicios básicos, principalmente el agua, la vivienda y el alimento. - Falta de coordinación y sinergia entre iniciativas públicas y privadas en el nivel territorial. - Débil acceso de recurso agua para la producción y consumo. - Brecha importante en la aplicación de prácticas agrícolas entre pequeños y grandes productores. PROPÓSITO DE LOS SISTEMAS ALIMENTARIOS - Acceso al alimento de forma equitativa, de forma saludable, y culturalmente pertinente. - Incremento de la producción para el consumo y la comercialización de excedente. - Aplicación de tecnología para la producción y procesamiento de alimentos. - Fomentar el consumo de alimentos nutritivos. - La mejora de la vinculación del mercado con los pequeños productores. PROPUESTAS DE SOLUCIONES EXITOSAS Se propone fortalecer la coordinación institucional, el enfoque holístico de atención a la familia, mejoramiento de los encadenamientos productivos, mejoramiento de los programas de protección social, desarrollar resiliencia, y la reorientación del gasto público, y financiamiento internacional. 2) Alimentos nutritivos ¿CÓMO LOGRAR SEGURIDAD ALIMENTARIA PARA GARANTIZAR EL ACCESO? - Generar alimentos sanos, que se articule con la inocuidad, la higiene, las buenas prácticas y el valor nutricional. - Fomentar una dieta saludable y de calidad. - Fortalecer la regulación generando un proceso de revisión y actualización. - Considerar incluir propuestas de políticas públicas que vienen desde los sectores sociales. ¿DÓNDE CENTRAMOS LOS ESFUERZOS? - Fomentar el acceso a la disponibilidad y variedad de alimentos nutritivos. - Mejorar la producción nacional de alimentos nutritivos. - Fortalecer los programas vinculados a la atención en los primeros 1000 días a la madre gestante, como al niño/a. - Asegurar el acceso de medios de vida para la salud. - Fortalecer la agricultura familiar. - Mejorar la atención integral de los programas del Estado, sobre todo a las transferencias condicionadas. 3) SEGURIDAD ALIMENTARIA PRINCIPALES VULNERABILIDADES - La introducción de productos alimenticios vía el contrabando. - El inadecuado manejo de los recursos naturales: agua, suelo, bosque y desechos. - La recuperación de los conocimientos de las comunidades indígenas y campesinas en temas de producción. - El consumidor cuenta con poca información acerca de calidad e inocuidad de alimentos. - La existencia de riesgo de contaminación de alimentos a la venta al por menor o nivel local OPORTUNIDADES -Generar estrategias de producción, almacenamiento y distribución de alimentos. - Fomentar la educación alimentaria - Promover la formalidad en los sistemas alimentarios. - Promover la propuesta del incentivo agrícola. - Generar compras públicas responsables (El Estado como consumidor). - Promover el adecuado manejo del agua, suelo y conservación de la diversidad biológica. POTENCIALIDADES -Vincular los sistemas productivos de comunidades indígenas y comunidades locales a la producción de alimentos saludables. - Fomentar las cadenas de comercialización de granos básicos.237238243244245246247248249250251Durante el Primer Diálogo Nacional, se identificaron las siguientes recomendaciones por sector: - Desde el Sector privado, se destacó la importancia de la actualización de la normativa nacional vinculada a los sistemas alimentarios y su sostenibilidad. De igual manera promover la producción y consumo de alimentos saludables, inocuos y nutritivos. - Desde el Sector público, se destacó el fortalecimiento de los micro y pequeños productores de alimentos, como de la agricultura familiar, el desarrollo de programas de asistencia social. De igual manera, un abordaje responsable de las propuestas presentadas, por parte de la institucionalidad pública. - Desde el Sector de las Organizaciones Indígenas, se destacó el rescate de los conocimientos tradicionales sobre consumo y producción de alimentos. - Desde el Sector de las Organizaciones Ambientales, se destacó la importancia de impulsar el manejo sostenible de los recursos naturales y la conservación de la diversidad biológica.

2021-04-11 16:07:39205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/8054/100

15641684511797526286151122531511011224511115441192034526312875

Kuwait recognized the importance of hosting phase one of National Food Systems Dialogue as part of Member State Dialogue. Thus, Kuwait was the first Arab country to hold a member state National Food System Dialogue on 30 March 2021. The event embraced the Summit principles of engagement: Act with Urgency, commit to the Summit, Be Respectful, Recognize Complexity, Embrace Multi Stakeholder Inclusivity, Complement the Work of Others, and Build Trust.Kuwait National Food Systems Dialogues invited multiple stakeholders from different backgrounds and sectors to participate in phase one of the National dialogue in preparation of the UN Food Systems Summit in September 2021. Phase one of the dialogue was organized by the Public Authority for Food and Nutrition (PAFN) - Kuwait and was held virtually. Participants included stakeholders from across the food systems, ranging from farmers, food industry, government, Non-Governmental Organization, activists, research and academic institutions, financial agencies, media, telecommunication, and most importantly school students. This diverse group of stakeholders provided a comprehensive view of the country's food systems. Participants shared diverse perspectives, and managed to identify challenges, discover opportunities, and suggested applicable solutions. There were five breakout rooms, each room had a curator and two facilitators. The Chatham House Rule of non-attribution encouraged participants to engage in the discussion. During the last hour of the dialogue, all participants returned back to plenary and a facilitator from each breakout room read aloud the important points that were discussed and covered in each breakout room.It is very important to appreciate the principles of engagement when preparing for the dialogue. Spending enough time to list all stakeholders is important for a successful dialogue. It is advisable to encourage women to voice their opinions as they have proved themselves in many developmental sectors such as academia, environment, social issues and more. It is also noted that the inclusion of school students added value to the dialogue and ensured that no one was left behind. Every opinion is important, and everyone shared their views in a very respectful manner.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Kuwait held a National food systems dialogue virtually on 30 March 2021 in preparation for the Food Systems Summit (FSS) in September 2021. Different stakeholders participated in the dialogue representing the different roles and interests along the food systems chain. More than 156 participants spent four hours exploring Kuwait food systems along the five action tracks and levers of the UN Food Systems Summit. Participants conducted a thorough diagnosis of Kuwait food systems with the aim to address the challenges, potentials, and vulnerabilities of our food systems, and to come up with concrete actions to support the transformation of food systems in Kuwait. Participants were assigned to one of the five break out rooms, each room addressing one action track. These action tracks are: 1) Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all. 2) Shift to sustainable consumption patterns. 3) Boost nature positive production. 4) Advance equitable livelihoods 5) Build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks, and stress. It was clear from discussions that there was an excessive focus on the vulnerability of Kuwait's food systems that is import dependent and the need to have a clear vision aiming to transform Kuwait into a self-sufficient country. COVID-19 pandemic exposed the suboptimal functions of Kuwait food systems and proved that it is vulnerable to shock and stress despite many years of investment in policies and programs. There is an urgent need of significant policy reformulation and shift in business models to strengthen national food systems.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Kuwait has the capacity to build its national food systems, but this will require radical change in the country's government structure, public-private partnerships, and above all strong political will and courage to set up food and nutrition security action plan in Kuwait. This is achievable by establishing a supreme council for food and nutrition headed by a decision maker at the highest administration at the national level accompanied with proper legislations, implementation, and monitoring. This will enable all key players across the various subsystems and domains to align their action plans towards achieving common goals that are effective, efficient, and sustainable. Kuwait national development plan 2035 needs to include a food and nutrition security plan that focuses on prioritizing nutrition policies and healthy lifestyle behavior that is culturally applicable, resilient, and sustainable. There is an urgent need to transform Kuwait from a country that depends on importation of all types of food to a country of self-sufficiency. While these transformations might take some time to achieve, Kuwait must start by taking some immediate strategic transition steps that include: - Forming Supreme council for food and nutrition security. - Increase investment in Food Systems research and development. - Enhance investment in infrastructures that support critical innovations and increase resilience and productivity. - Engage youth and women in agriculture using technology. - Educate children and youth about adequate food consumption. - Put in place risk management in food systems.236238243244245246247248249250251Nutrition surveillance results of the State of Kuwait since the beginning of the millennium indicate that one of the most important risk factors associated with chronic diseases are overweight and obesity, not consuming the recommended quantities of fruits and vegetables, and physical activity in all age groups, especially among school children and adult women are below the required standard for disease prevention. One of the recommendations was to implement intervention programs to raise the level of community nutritional awareness, with an emphasis on school students to improve their nutritional health. It is also recommended to adopt policies that strengthen partnership with the private sector: manufacturers, producers and suppliers of food and supporting small enterprises and youth initiatives to adopt the WHO and FAO recommendations to locally produce and import food commodities with low content of added salt, added sugar and free from trans fatty acids. This will improve the nutritional status of the population and reduce risk factors associated with chronic diseases, while aiming to reduce the cost of these food products to facilitate their availability. It is also important to support farmers by providing smart technologies in all stages of agriculture. It is important to identify and exchange experiences with the countries of the region regarding success stories of increasing local production of fruits and vegetables using modern scientific methods that ensures sustainable water usage to reduce waste and access to quality products. It is important to revise the currant food subsidies policy that includes food that does not comply with the recommendations of international organizations concerned with health and nutrition that contributes to increased consumption, waste and possibly misuse. It is extremely important to make the appropriate amendments to the quantities allocated to everyone in addition to replacing some of the items while adding others that are healthier and more nutritious. Youth nutritional health is important; thus, it is a priority to review and amend food items sold in school canteens, complying with the approved regulations and requirements, following up on their implementation, and making appropriate adjustments based on the assessment of results. Imbedding health and nutrition into the school curricula in an attractive and interesting manner will encourage students to consume these foods in a scientifically proven methods such as front of pack labeling. Participants shared the success stories of public-private partnership with regards to Kuwait flour mills and bakeries company which added micronutrients to flour to protect the community from health problems. Furthermore, fruit juice and nectar manufacturers agreed and reduced significant percentage of added sugar in their products. Also, manufacturers of salted snacks agreed and reduced percentage of added salt in their products. Adopting unhealthy dietary patterns due to unfair advertisements and promotions in media of processed foods, sugar-sweetened and carbonated beverages, energy drinks, which are characterized by empty calories, is a major challenge that needs to be addressed. It is important to educate mothers about maternal, infant and child nutrition, implementation of baby-friendly hospitals, and regional and international cooperation in this field.236239243244245246247248249250251Participants unanimously agreed on the importance of establishing a crisis management policy within the sustainable development programs. They are also stressed on the importance of developing comprehensive and up-to-date statistical studies on consumption patterns and volume of food waste. It is important to implement food waste recycling in food industry, and the application of waste management systems, as well as encouraging competition among all companies committed to the food waste reduction. As for government support for farmers, opinions differed about it, with some pointing to the necessity of maintaining government support and linking it to production. Others believed that government subsidies should be canceled in order not to be misused. Everyone agreed that there is a need to raise a new generation concerned with reducing food waste. This is achieved through educational curricula and tightening legislation to impose supervision on school canteens. Participants suggested adding tax on lost and wasted quantities of food, with the aim of rationalizing consumption. Participants stressed the importance of adopting policies and programs that contribute to reducing costs and encouraging work to reduce water and electricity consumption in agriculture. There is a need to encourage local agriculture to achieve self-sufficiency in food. As for voluntary work to provide food to families in need, participants suggested the importance of cooperation with retailers and food establishments to withdraw food before its expiration date for distribution to these families, thus reducing food waste. Participants noted the importance of the existence of units for the safe disposal of carcasses of dead livestock and the need to develop feed mills to serve livestock breeders, combat animal epidemics, and develop plans to vaccinate livestock in line with scientific evidence and international guidelines in this field.236240243244245246247248249250251The participants suggested that the enactment of legislation and government support is essential and that there is a need to incorporate modern technology in agricultural and industrial fields, but the most prominent challenges were the high prices that needed government support. It is important to enforce laws and impose taxation to force companies to recycle agricultural and industrial waste and reuse it to protect the environment. The importance of cooperation between agencies and encouraging joint work between private and government institutions and public benefit associations is urgently needed. The relationship between the Public Authority of Environment and the Public Authority for Agriculture Affairs and Fish Resources must be strengthened due to their mutual interests. Learning from success stories in the use of technology in agriculture is cost effective. Companies expressed their willingness to share their successful experiences and provide consultations and capacity building to small and medium enterprises in water waste management. Participants stressed the importance of establishing a higher council for food security, or a national company concerned with food security. In addition, the participants expressed the need to support research in agriculture and food production as well as supporting environmentally friendly food production by the small and medium enterprises companies. They also suggested the need for capacity building about agricultural technology and food industries and promoting the incorporation of environmental citizenship in school curricula.236241243244245246247248249250251Establishing policies and laws or amending current laws for the advancement of agricultural and industrial sectors and developing professional skills to promote equitable livelihoods, equality, and justice for all segments of society. Enacting new laws to protect small and medium food enterprises is needed. Participants discussed the need to develop curricula to encourage the younger generation to enroll in specialties related to veterinary medicine and agriculture such as agricultural engineering and other either in Kuwait or abroad. This will contribute to increase job opportunities and raise the rates of local food production. There is an important need to revise food subsidies in line with the current economic, social and health circumstances. The importance of allocating lands to support entrepreneurs to increase and diversify agricultural production while identifying strategic food items needed by the consumers to contribute to food security. Legislating laws related to equity and equality in job opportunities and allocating funds to support entrepreneurs in the field of food production to ensure sustainability was strongly emphasized. Encouraging recycling and utilizing excess food, which reduces food waste. Many participants expressed their concerns regarding challenges that limit local food production such as unfairness of agricultural land distribution, misuse of agricultural lands and lack of accountability.236242243244245246247248249250251There are many challenges that face Kuwait regarding action track 5 and the need to ensure adequate supplies of safe and nutritious foods. Due to the limited agricultural production, rapid growth in food demand, the huge dependency on imported food and the presence of several regulatory bodies working in the field of food, agriculture, and health leads to an overlap of responsibilities and thus leads to ineffective implementation. Providing safe and nutritious food by following laws, legislations and updated standards helps to improve food production systems and ensures the principle of “If it is not safe, it is not food'. It is also important to establish food traceability mechanisms to track food production of imported and locally produced food, and the necessity to apply penalties to violators on the misuse of pesticides for example. Many opinions emphasized the necessity of investing in the field of modern agriculture technologies due to its importance in steadfastness and standing in the face of natural changes. This would help in agricultural production opportunities and supports the production system by urging the adoption of good agricultural practices. One of the most important solutions discussed to amend the current conditions of food systems namely, manufacturing, cultivation, import, through all the food and nutrition chain systems to ensure quality and food safety for the consumer. Risk based analysis must be properly implemented. It was also mentioned by the participants that community awareness of food security and sustainability is important during the early stages of education.237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Different action tracks had different areas of divergence. Action Track 1: 'Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all' showed no disagreement. Rather, there was consensus and agreement on the importance of enacting necessary laws, legislations and activating partnerships between all concerned sectors, whether governmental, private, and civil unions to achieve the desired goals. Action Track 2: 'Shift to sustainable consumption patterns' opinion divergence involved different opinions regarding the need to recycle food wastes whereas others focused on eliminating food waste altogether. Action Track 3: 'Boost nature-positive production' revealed no disagreements. In fact, everyone agreed on the challenges facing agricultural and industrial production. Also, it was agreed on the lack of legislation and laws related to agricultural waste and loss. Action Track 4: 'Advance equitable livelihoods' showed no differences in opinions. On the contrary, it was noted that there is a great agreement among all participants on the importance of promoting a culture of justice and equality among all segments of society and ensuring the achievement of justice and equality for all and combating discrimination as one of the foundations supporting the promotion of fair livelihoods. Action Track 5: 'Build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress' showed agreement among participants.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Siham2.jpghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Siham-3.jpghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/PAFN-team-at-the-dialogue-scaled.jpghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Food-Summit-Dialogue-2021-Certificate.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/تقرير-الكويت-لحوار-النظم-الغذائية-باللغة-العربية.docxhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Jana-Al-Mutawa.jpghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Reema-Al-Sayer.jpghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Reema-Al-Sayer1.jpghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtRKdMOGcZ4https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaH0Jhzqhg4https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvgUiu2c-rg

2021-04-12 07:42:59205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/11095/95

22202175517

NoIn the Japan National Food Systems Dialogue with Japan Agricultural High school Principals Association held on 17th March 2021, MAFF explained the outline of FSS including the purpose, the key issues of sustainable food system etc. The members of the association made comments on that.

234238239240241242251In this dialogue, we discussed challenges and opportunities related to all Action Tracks.235238239240241242251The meeting with agricultural high school principals was held to exchange opinions on education related to SDGs and sustainable food systems. Main ideas and opinions are as follows: ・Most students at agricultural high schools used to be sons and daughters of farmers who would inherit farmland. However, with the decreasing number of young farmers, the agricultural society is hard to keep up these days, lacking a clear image of students for agricultural education. Thus, establishing a new model of the agricultural community is critical for the society as well as agricultural high schools. ・At schools, the students study SDGs as a research theme for finding solutions. If they learn that SDGs is the center topic of discussions at the Unite Nations Food Systems Summit, they become much more interested in their research on SDGs. It is possible for high school students to have the worldwide perspective and consider SDGs through their daily research, which, as a result, would improve their motivation for study. ・Workshops in which high school students can participate are very good opportunities for educators to convey the importance of SDGs and sustainable food systems to them. They understand that pursuing SDGs is a worldwide challenge, and by understanding this, they improve their ability to think by themselves through interactive communication and exchange of opinions. ・Each agricultural high school makes its own effort, aiming at all 17 goals of sustainable development. On the other hand, the students may not understand worldwide socioeconomic circumstances very well. If the national and local governments provide related information more, they will understand the worldwide socioeconomic circumstances and SDGs much deeper. Then, specific ideas and action among students can emerge. ・Holding a regional meeting in cooperation with each regional branch of the national government or local government, or holding an information exchange meeting with foreign students, is a good stimulus for the students and it would lead to better understanding to SDGs and sustainable food systems.

2021-04-12 10:50:04205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/11622/95

31301265526

NoIn the Japan National Food Systems Dialogue with 4H Club members held on 22nd March 2021, MAFF explained the outline of FSS including the purpose, the key issues of sustainable food system and asked following questions. Q1. What kind of action and measures (including developing technologies, establishing systems for spreading, accelerating investments, etc.) do you need for reducing the use of chemical fertilizer and chemical pesticides, and further promoting organic farming? Q2. As a young farmer like yourself, do you feel any difficulty to express your opinion in the local community? Is there anything you want to change to improve the present situation? The 4H Club members made comments on that.

234240241244248251In this dialogue, we discussed challenges and opportunities related to Action Track 3 especially regarding action and measures for reducing the use of chemical fertilizer and chemical pesticides, and further promoting organic farming, and Action Track 4 especially regarding difficulties of young farmers in expressing their opinions in the local community and solutions to the situation.235240241244248251The meeting with 4H Club members was held to exchange opinions related to SDGs and sustainable food systems. Main ideas and opinions regarding action and measures for reducing the use of chemical fertilizer and chemical pesticides, and further promoting organic farming are as follows: (1) When Japan intends to promote organic farming, genome editing crops may become a barrier to the export of agricultural products in the future. It is necessary to stay in line with international standards while facilitating innovation in Japan. (2) In Europe, the public purchase of organic farm products has become widespread. 50% of school lunch in France are said to be public purchased organic products. In Japan, we need to introduce locally produced organic products into lunch at public schools. (3) There are only a few kinds of pesticides in the field of horticulture. It will be helpful if a pesticide that steers resistibility of plants is developed. (4) As pesticides cannot be used much for organic farming, it will be useful if the herbicide that only makes specific weed died down is developed. (5) Organic farming and reduced pesticides are feasible only when consumers are willing to buy the products for a high price. Without changing consumers’ attitude, farm producers cannot be changed. (6) When promoting organic farming, we need well-established training systems including a curriculum of sales for organic products. (7) There is a gap in items and areas for reducing pesticide use and organic farming that can be introduced. Therefore, it is necessary for us to develop technologies suitable for the land at an experimental laboratory in each prefecture. (8) It often happens that excess supply in the market pushes down prices,　and farm products are easily influenced in terms of price. If an IT system indicating the timing of seeding in each production area is developed, we can avoid overlapping of picking seasons and free fall of the prices. (9) 20% to 30% of agricultural products are discarded in the process of production, therefore, we should consider reforming the existing standards and distribution systems. -Main ideas and opinions regarding difficulties of young farmers in expressing their opinions in the local community and solutions to the situation are as follows: (1) Active young farmers are joining in the agricultural organizations for youth such as 4H club. It is important to expand these activities nationwide, and the involvement and support of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries is very helpful. (2)After I joined in 4H club and was assigned to an official position, I won the confidence to be able to express my opinion. We would like to encourage young farmers to participate in agricultural organizations and to have experience to express their opinions.

2021-04-12 12:20:41204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/1565/203

Yes

2021-04-13 16:41:26205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/8707/84

5929306812042693

En el primer dialogo se utilizó la estructura de la gobernanza en seguridad alimentaria y nutricional con que cuenta Honduras y al comienzo se hizo énfasis en la cumbre, haciendo una recopilación de los esfuerzos globales para mejora de los índices de la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional y de los sistemas alimentariosIntegración en este primer dialogo de sectores claves en el funcionamiento y apoyo al sector de Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutricional, cooperación internacional , Gobierno ,sector privado.

Yes

234238241242244247248251Acciones para transformar los Sistemas Alimentarios de Honduras al 2030: i) Importancia de la participación de Honduras en el diálogo nacional para la cumbre de los sistemas alimentarios: Los sistemas alimentarios actuales son una de las causas del hambre y el cambio climático, por lo cual para erradicar el hambre será necesario provocar cambios significativos en las formas en que se financien, producen, procesan, comercializan, almacenan, distribuyen, preparan, comparten y consumen la mayor parte de los alimentos. Nuestra gente: una población joven que ha demostrado su gran potencial en idiomas y trabajo a distancia Nuestro clima: un clima privilegiado para la producción de alimentos con la implementación de tecnología de control de riesgos. Una situación de alta vulnerabilidad al hambre y al cambio climático reconocida por la comunidad internacional. Nuestra ubicación: nuestra ubicación y puertos nos permiten ser el HUB de Centro América para los servicios logísticos de los sistemas alimentarios regionales modernos. Nuestra cobertura en telecomunicaciones: un alto grado de cobertura en zonas rurales del país. Nuestra planificación estratégica: Un sistema de planificación para el desarrollo con herramientas y sistemas de medición fácilmente adaptables a la visión del futuro. ii) Análisis de las vías de acción: El fin del diálogo es que al final como país podamos determinar las vías de acción que vamos a seguir. Los diálogos buscan tener un equilibrio en temas de pobreza y equidad, en temas de desarrollo y empoderamiento de mujeres, jóvenes y grupos vulnerables. iii) Reconocer que tipo de sistema alimentario tenemos: Cuáles son las políticas enfocadas en esto y que tenemos que reconocer el avance de la empresa privada/cooperación; que nuestro sistema alimentario está atado a decisiones de países vecinos, etc. Si logramos reconocer cuáles son las brechas, reconocer tanto los avances como los desafíos, podremos entonces avanzar al 2030. Se buscan los puntos que nos permita avanzar fácilmente, que nos permita mejorar e identificar las áreas que no estamos atendiendo apropiadamente y crear planes de acción para cerrar brechas. El país ha avanzado en los últimos 20 años, pero también se ha disparado el tema de sobre peso y obesidad que afecta la población Es por es que tenemos que tomar en cuenta no solo la desnutrición, pero ahora también el sobre peso y obesidad. En cuanto a producción, debemos crear estrategias de protección ante el cambio climático. iv) Mecanismos de cambio: Impulsar los diálogos y que a través crear una hoja de ruta estructura con la posición de país que permita medidas de acción sostenibles235239241242244245246247248249251A) Desarrollo y equidad: No se puede inseguridad alimentaria si no hablamos de pobreza y desigualdad. Todos estos puntos están interconectados. B) Identificar las áreas que no se están atendiendo apropiadamente, para crear planes de acción y cerrar brechas. Se deben articular y alinear esfuerzos del Plan Nacional de Reconstrucción y Transformación. Identificar realidades que permitan promover acciones de cambio. C) Se debe promover la transferencia de conocimiento y tecnología a los productores como buenas prácticas sostenibles que contribuyan a este mejoramiento y disminuir la vulnerabilidad climática. Dar a la población la información necesaria para que ellos sepan como alimentarse D) Atención al tema agua como derecho universal y como el primer alimento: Priorizar el manejo integra de microcuencas en las comunidades, la incorporación de tecnologías limpias en los planes e manejo de cuentas, con fines de mercado pero también para la disponibilidad de alimentos: agricultura orgánica, manejo de desechos sólidos, recuperación de suelos degradados y otros. E) Se necesitan otros actores dentro de los esfuerzos (por ejemplo, el sector salud) F) No podemos centrarnos solo en la producción, existe toda esta parte de los flujos de mercado, integrar más las producciones. El sector urbano es sumamente importante. G) El tema de innovación: debe existir innovación tecnológica en temas como financiamientos, buscar más sectores y rebajar los costos. H) No existen cifras resientes que nos permitan tener un panorama de lo que está sucediendo (no tenemos cifras resientes de desnutrición infantil, por ejemplo). I) Crear espacios de participación para los grupos que suelen ser excluidos en estos diálogos (grupos vulnerables especialmente mujeres y jóvenes, así como a los pequeños productores). J) Es importante tener mecanismos de quejas y que los proyectos lleguen a donde deben y que realmente se logre el impacto necesario. K) Se debe considerar en que forma se armoniza estos sistemas agrícolas en torno a políticas forestales, que representan un capital para su desarrollo, ya que la perdida forestal ha hecho que aumente la vulnerabilidad. L) Se debe enfocar a diversificar la producción a productos hortícolas y frutales y enfocarnos geográficamente donde hay potencial M) Medios de vida equitativos: ejemplo mercados inclusivos, medios de vida, distribuir los insumos para que pequeños productores puedan diversificarse, además del esquema de maíz y frijol, acceso a tecnología en general y mejora de productividad de estos productores N) Es importante la participación comunicatoria y empoderamiento de las comunidades y gobiernos locales tomando en cuenta la participación de la comunidad para que se sientan apropiados del tema y tomar en cuenta las ideas y experiencias de ellos. O) Apuntar hacia una visión global de los sistemas alimentarios, analizar cuáles son las acciones que realizan los países vecinos y como estas podrían repercutir en nuestros esfuerzos. P) Después del análisis realizado por tres mesas de trabajo la conclusión son que el gobierno debe priorizar de cara al cumplimento de ODS las vías de acción 4 y 5, de tal forma que se fortalezca la acción de políticas públicas presupuesto y gestión de cooperación sin descuidar las acciones de gobierno y sociedad en las vías 1 2 y 3 debemos mencionar . Q) A raíz de la vulnerabilidad que se vio exacerbada por las tormentas ETA e IOTA y la pandemia del Covid -19 el gobierno está enfocado en un plan de reconstrucción sostenible inclusivo donde se priorizando la vulnerabilidad, generación de empleo para poder cerrar la brecha de inequidad del país .236Tenemos hasta 10 temas de debate para los próximos diálogos el primer dialogo se enfoco en la ruta a seguir.237238241246250251a) Áreas de trabajo a tomar en cuenta: Centrarse en la producción y su calidad vs. Tomar en cuenta al sector urbano que juega también un rol importante b) Grupos de interés a involucrar Grupos vulnerables, mujeres y jóvenes, pequeños y medianos productores vs. Gobierno central y gobiernos locales Participación de todos los sectores vs. Participación inmediata de los tomadores de decisiones c) Análisis: Se deben analizar las prácticas locales y sus efectos vs. Tomar en cuenta las acciones de los países vecinos y como estas repercuten en nuestros esfuerzos d) Intervenciones: Se necesita intervención de la cooperación externa para solventar las problemáticas vs. El gobierno central debe centrar mayores esfuerzos en esas problemáticas

2021-04-15 19:30:36204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/6291/203

2231351175711210111931412514137184654414431004112668106107144221

The dialogue was designed to incorporate the Principles through the inclusive landscape lens with the concept of “strengthening landscape/seascape partnerships” responding to most of the Principles given the urgency, inclusiveness, rights-based approach, respectfulness of diversity, and the need to complement the work of others to transform food systems. In addition, we committed to the summit and its process for moving the agenda forward by inviting the Deputy Head of the UNFSS Martin Frick and the lead for Action Track 3 Joao Campari to introduce the summit and listen to the feedback from landscape leaders and support institutions.Given the systemic nature of food systems, the incorporation of an integrated landscape approach with Landscape Partners was meant to offer an inclusive and rights-based approach for global perspectives with a multi-stakeholder approach. Focusing on the game-changing solution of “strengthening landscape partnerships” through Action Track 3, we were focusing explicitly on the Principles of: • Acting with urgency • Committing to the summit (as explained in the previous answer) • Being respectful • Recognize complexity • Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusiveness • Complement the works of others • Building trust We did this by using our independent dialogue to give a voice to different landscape perspectives by inviting four diverse landscape leaders representing their territories needs and perspectives which were invited to discuss the challenges they face and the needs they have for institutional support to support their locally developed plans that support food systems. We invited stakeholders from organizations that support landscape partnerships to also discuss their experience in how they have been supporting landscape partnerships develop and what they see to being most effective in helping them reach their goals of supporting livelihoods and nature-positive outcomes in the context of the FSS. Our ultimate goal was for landscape leaders and supporters to share their perspectives and needs, while also engaging with a wider audience across the FSS. Understanding that food systems involve everyone, it is essential to embrace multi-stakeholders globally and find ways to complement the work being developed by everyone. This is why we were very pleased to see multiple interactions throughout the dialogue, which can build trust and coalitions for the FSS.To truly commit to the ambition and urgency needed for food systems transformation, there is a need to intentionally bring together participants and an audience which is fill of diverse opinions and contexts to most accurately reflect the complexity of a systems transformation that is being sought at the FSS and listen to these perspectives. Collaborate with the different organizations and individuals that will be speaking at your dialogue and through their networks to have more divergence and richness throughout the dialogue.

NoThe virtual session featured an overview of the Summit process by the UNFSS leadership, the voices of four landscape leaders from Africa, Latin America and the United States, and the perspectives of national and international Landscape Partnership support organizations. We were delighted to welcome over 340 participants who participated throughout the entire event, with over 890 registrations, from 71 different countries. However, to gather the data for the event for the FSS, we developed several polls to ask the questions on age, sex, sector, and stakeholder information in the opening part of the event. Unfortunately this means we can only report back on the information of the participants that joined the event in the initial 5 minutes. The event was curated to gather feedback, perspectives and needs from local landscape partnerships and support organizations. There was lively discussion in the chat, and we dedicated time to gathering feedback, perspectives, and questions to ask the panelists and participants. The points of convergence and divergence were heard and discussed through the chat where a detailed recorded can be accessed with the notes from the chat. The agenda of the event was curated to allow all of the speakers to share their perspectives, opinions and their needs to the FSS. The facilitator then intentionally asked for questions from the wider audience and asked the panelists respond to the perspectives and questions from the audience. Points of convergence and divergence were discussed, particularly in the chat function of the event, with different perspectives emerging and the needs to discuss more in-depth arising. Due to time constraints, and the digital platform, there was an expression from participants to continue to conversation. The agenda can be found below: • Welcome • Introduction and Objectives • Panel 1: What support do Landscape Partnerships need and want • Participant Inputs • Panel 2: How can organizations supporting landscape partnerships be more effective? • Participant Inputs • Comments from speakers and participants – how to move this agenda forward? • Next Steps and Closing

234238240241242244246247249250The focus of the dialogue was a combination of (ii), (iii) and (iv). In the context of systems change, there is a need to explore who will, in practice, operationalize the food systems transformation at a local level and translate the global ambition of food systems transformation. Landscape/seascape partnerships, through an integrated landscape management approach, through locally developed and agreed upon action plans can manage the trade-offs in their landscapes while ensuring human rights are met. However, for LPs to support systems transformation it is necessary to understand what the FSS can do to support local-led visions. This integrated “game changing” solution was developed within AT 3, however, it links mainly to action tracks 1, 4 and 5 due to food systems developing within action tracks and their local decision making for access to safe and nutritious food for all, advance equitable livelihoods, and build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stresses all occurring at a landscape level.235238240241243244245246247248249250251Landscape Partnerships (LPs) are increasingly seen as an inclusive, integrated solution to managing nature-positive and livelihood challenges. This was highlighted by the remarks from the UNFSS leadership, saying that “Landscapes are a perfect example of how to manage the complexity [of food systems transformation] because on a piece of land the interdependencies of water, grazing, cropping, consumption and pollution becomes clear. And it’s in a landscape where you can organize people to work together” Martin Frick, Deputy to the Special Envoy for the UNFSS. Joao Campari, lead for Action Track 3 also highlighted that Landscape Partnerships can play a crucial role in aligning ecological processes with sustainable food production. There thus seem to be great opportunities for LPs to become a central feature of food systems transformation using nature-based climate solutions, green growth and post-covid recovery plans under development. However, landscape partnership leaders and support organizations agreed that they are lacking the needed institutional support to transform food systems. It is essential that if food systems transformation wants to be supported, we must listen to those working at a landscape-level to respond to their evolving needs. However, most national and state institutions are set up to provide support designed for the top-down, sectoral siloed modes of the past. Therefore, there is a high risk that LPs will be bypassed by these new global transformative initiatives, unless institutions and support functions can adapt to local needs. Other conclusions included: • the decision-making power of current economic systems was challenged as being unfair, particularly to local/indigenous/seasonal ways of life that are not included in most decision-making processes for large international summits. In addition, the inter-generational view of economic decision making for food systems was also questioned around what was meant by “sustainable”. • The need to integrate young and local leadership, emphasizing the need for education for the younger generation and future decision-makers in landscapes which was not explicitly stated, for knowledge transfer of landscape wisdom. • Value-chain approach to food systems not the right way to work through things, though the existing system, with needed landscapes to also increase their resiliency through more traditional methods236238240241242243244245246247248249250251Landscape and Seascape Partnerships: Opportunities and Requirements Our participants stressed the need for systems and institutions responsive to the needs of an integrated landscape management approach. Given the evolving social and environmental needs of landscape partnerships over time, they highlighted vital areas they requested support from the UNFSS: • Governmental support creating enabling conditions for developing and supporting landscape partnerships to transform food systems, while managing socio-ecological needs through effective governance. • Market development for natural capital value, mainly through payments for ecosystems services, giving value to landscapes and seascapes currently not accounted for. • Linking results-based financing to impacts on biodiversity and livelihoods impacts.236238240241242243244245246248249250How can Landscape Partnerships be more effective? Our landscape support organizations reiterated the need for long-term institutional support for landscape partnerships. They highlighted the following key areas where they requested support from the UNFSS: • Technical support through data, tools, technology, and knowledge exchange for improved scenario planning and decision-making. • Government coordination and public finance to de-risk investments from the private sector • “Green growth” business transition, incubation and acceleration support for local entrepreneurs and businesses.237241242245246247The main divergences were around: a) Perspectives on influence of supply chains, with some warning of lack of resiliency of food systems and being over-exposed to the market disrupts, while others emphasized potential innovations in supply chain processes supporting sustainable landscapes. b) While many emphasized that involving finance in the right ways can be a solution, others saw financial actors as a threat, especially coming from extractive (i.e. palm oil growers) industries that will drive a different agenda. c) Participants highlighted the different development of landscape partnerships and contextual needs based on countries i.e. comparing a “crowded” country of Malawi vs other more expansive countries like Canada that have significantly more territory and how integrated landscape management needs are significantly different in each context. d) There were some differences in considering which stakeholder interests should be prioritized: the need of integrating more farmers and indigenous rights i.e., Land tenure/rights of returning land to indigenous people based on historical treaties vs Integrating land use and public/private partnerships in the current system.

2021-04-16 17:30:26https://ecoagriculture.org/blog/strengthening-landscape-partnerships-a-game-changing-solution-for-food-system-transformation/

2021-04-16 10:59:20204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/7089/6296104

2471301125122113141005294192635581220416199059

The Dialogue was organized according to the set principles of engagement of the summit. An introduction set the scene for participants presenting the summit vision, objectives, and the current status of the Dialogues. In the first part of the Dialogue, High-level speakers emphasized on importance of holding dialogues in various forms to enable discussion, and exchange of ideas between variety of stakeholders aiming to present all proposals for actions to achieve sustainable food systems in the Arab region to the United Nations Food Systems Summit. International and National Speakers provided feedback on dialogues and region challenges after which an open discussion session was set. The dialogue modality allowed for active participation of stakeholders where participants provided solutions and actions either through direct intervention or by writing in the chat box. Organizers simultaneously copied all proposals into the interactive online platform called “Mural” to make them graphically visible for all to see and comment on.Holding the Dialogue virtually necessitated the use of different approaches for engaging participants during the zoom session. English and Arabic translation were provided throughout, and the Dialogue conveners encouraged active participation. The session was recorded thus making it available for all participants. It also used the “Mural” application which allowed participants to see input simultaneously while being discussed. Many were also given a chance to provide input directly from the floor or in the chat box in relation to questions on action tracks. A diverse range of stakeholders were brought together to consolidate regional views, perspectives and experiences regarding pathways and potential actions for equitable and sustainable food systems transformation and support the implementation of the SDGs within the context of current realities.It is recommended to present the Summit objectives and vision and action tracks with some facts and evidence-based information linked to the action track at the beginning of the session. This may promote further intervention from participants especially if these facts are related to the region/country. Using an application that is visual and allows direct input from participants showed to be efficient in collecting further views and addressing hot issues that may arise such as identifying responsibilities for each game changer proposed and prioritizing issues based on relevance

NoOwing to COVID-19 restrictions, the dialogue was organized as a 90-minute online meeting using the Zoom platform. The dialogue modality allowed for active participation of stakeholders using a combination of tools including an interactive online platform “MURAL” where participants were invited to write their proposals live in the chat while broadcasting. Time was allocated for active discussions and interaction. The Arab Regional Food Systems Dialogue was divided into three main parts: Part I Presented background information about the food system summit in general and the three types of dialogues and processes. It also provided a review of the selected five action tracks and the expected outcomes of the summit. Countries were also encouraged to hold national dialogues to participate either in the Pre- Summit happening in July, or in the Summit happening in September 2021. Part II Presented regional perspective on food systems and main drivers affecting food security within the context of the Arab region. An overview of regional legislations and country examples were addressed pre- and post- COVID-19. This session highlighted the need for Dialogue especially in terms of building resilience of agricultural production systems especially for small holder farmers in response to crisis in the region. Youth representative also gave a perspective of the youth priorities in terms of food systems. Part IV opened the floor for oral discussions in relation to the actions in addition to use of an interactive online discussion platform MURAL to allow participants to identify game changing solutions. Organizers copied what was written in the chat box and what is was being discussed.

234238239240241242243244245246248249251Participants were invited to propose actions and identify actors responsible for implementing these actions taking into consideration cross cutting issues including climate change, innovation, women, youth, and finance. As a result, game changing actions were proposed on each of the four identified issues related to the action tracks namely ensuring access to safe and nutritious food for all, shifting to sustainable consumption pattern, boosting nature-positive production at sufficient scale, advancing equitable livelihoods and value distribution. The main outputs and messages from the two regional dialogues held earlier on March 9 and 11 for Arab youth and Arab stakeholders were also presented.235238239240241242243244245246247248249251The game changing actions identified across each of the four issues that were discussed include: 1. Call for all stakeholders to work together for implementing game changers. They all share the responsibility to shift food systems and change the rules of the game to achieve sustainable food security and nutrition for all. 2. Develop and adopt a regional guiding legislation about importance of having strategic stocks of essential commodities, whether food or non-food commodities so that it contributes to setting a safety percentage of these necessary commodities to avoid any shortages and crisis as witnessed during the Covid-19 pandemic. 3. Establishment of an Arab Centre for Food Security, that includes brings together Arab initiatives and that can provide appropriate financing through development and investment funds. 4. Below are the key messages emanating from the dialogue. These messages, along with other regional processes’ outcomes undertaken in the Arab Region (Arab Youth and Arab Stakeholders Dialogues), will be included, in a dedicated document that organizers will be submitting to Secretariat of the Food Systems Summit. The document will present pathways and key propositions for sustainable Arab food systems (a) Need for improved coordination and cooperation as transformation is a shared responsibility that involves partnerships among all sectors of society and transparency is a prerequisite for the success of those partnerships. (b) Adoption of a food systems approach that acknowledges inter-system and intersectoral linkages and the multiple outcomes of the food system: food security and nutrition, environmental, social and economic. (c) Development of an evidence-based decision-making process by collecting, analysing, and sharing food system data and scientific analysis for the purpose of supporting the transformation process. (d) Adoption of a context-specific approach to food systems resilience and sustainability at individual, household, social class and regional levels, taking into account shocks and stresses. (e) Addressing issues of inequalities associated with gender, age and marginalization, especially but not exclusively those relating to the food system and that impinge on food security and nutrition and equitable, sustainable and resilient livelihoods including equal pay for equal job, access and ownership of resources, and forced child labor. (f) Providing incentives for the adoption of nature-friendly technologies, entrepreneurs, climate smart agriculture, with special focus on the water, food and energy nexus as main derivatives for agricultural development and food security in the region (g) Building capacities to adapt to climate change encourages use of renewable energy for food production and processing and using modern and appropriate technologies throughout the food systems value chain. 5. The resulting document and meeting report to be shared with member countries to guide and support the national dialogues when undertaken.236238243246248Ensuring access to safe and nutritious food for all • Monitor the quality of the raw materials involved in the production process (basic and secondary materials) • Support the inclusion of fish in the food and nutrition program • Monitor local markets in terms of food quality and compliance with standards of healthy food • Establish micro-scale food production systems in cities and villages distributed among the population and including the entire agriculture chain • Support civil society organizations in food systems and encouraging related projects • Increase collaboration between Arab countries especially those with common issues and establish mechanism between countries that aid in establishing a food security fund that supports food baskets • Develop food banks and food-for-work programs • Secure strategic Arab stocks that are not subjected to political tensions and establish an Arab food security center • Improve government support for food factories (large and medium) such as stockpiling raw materials and considering them initial parts of strategic food storage • Develop policies that control the food market and form regional operations unit that reports movement of the global stockpile of major food commodities and global price expectations • Create data centers that provide advice to food industries in Arab region • Implement an Arab regional strategy to ensure food safety • Launch the International Year of Food Security to raise awareness and develop solutions • Promote consumption of traditional food • Initiate technical, administrative, and marketing units for food factories, that can prepare food industry managers and provide quality control • Provide resources, consultations, and education to farmers and livestock keepers on how to maintain healthy and proper production. Further enhance training and specializations related to agriculture • Establish an emergency committee during crises • Encourage adoption of health standards and environmental labels, especially data related to product life-cycle analysis during the various stages of procurement, supply, storage and distribution236239243244246248251• Enable dialogues with all the actors to reach healthy food systems • Reconsider the freedom of children to choose and buy their meals before going to school • Support production of high-quality homemade food while ensuring their affordability and promote local food production and traditional ways and educating consumers about the importance of supporting local products • Propose a World Nutrition Day • Increase consumer awareness and motivate and enable them to make good and healthy choices through social media, training and educational workshops, and providing offers on health products • Raise awareness among media workers of the importance of healthy food • Raise awareness among media workers of importance of healthy food and building on consumers' interests and perceptions of nutritional risks to change their food behavior • Set up appropriate educational programs, courses and group activities targeting children and youth to changing consumer behavior, and use social media to achieve this goal • Prepare a national action plan to develop sustainable consumption and production systems • Exchange experiences and success stories and educate consumers and producers to move towards sustainable consumption and production patterns. • Review national social protection programs, and replicate successful experiences from other countries • Establish laws to ensure product quality, impose quality control and penalties on violators, and apply food taxes • Ensure the establishment of an institutional framework concerned in transforming food systems into sustainable and healthy consumption and production systems and developing legislations that contribute to accelerating this transformation. • Enhance the role of health institutions in raising consumers ’awareness of the need to change their unhealthy • Enhance food integration departments, where each department coordinate among its members to address the quantitative or qualitative food shortage under the supervision of the United Nations as technical support. • Provide financing to private institutions on projects that adopt sustainable production systems and establish new consumption behaviors that take into account the requirements of sustainability and waste reduction • Increase investment in innovation and logistics systems such as climate-smart agriculture and improve post-harvest operations, infrastructure, packaging and cooling centers to reduce food waste and loss.236240243244246248• Reclaim and rehabilitate agricultural lands, encourage good management of resources and increase efficiency of resources used, especially ground and surface water and agricultural lands through the use of modern technology • Enhance provisions related to technology transfer and capacity building included in the UN Climate Change Agreement • Improve skilled professional and provide the necessary infrastructure • Enhance the role of research and encourage scientific agricultural studies to solve problems of agricultural production, especially applied research • Improve regional cooperation in scientific research, Arab partnerships, and exchange of capabilities according to the comparative advantage of agricultural production • Promote genetic improvement programs for quantitative and qualitative production • Endorse national campaigns on environmental challenges, and include in the education curriculums and disseminate pioneering experiences in agriculture and food processing • Establish pilot projects that improve water and energy use and reduce pollution to support countries in crisis and with funds from World Bank, Green Climate Fund and FAO • Support entrepreneurial projects and grant provision for youth initiatives • Implement educational program on leadership in the field of agriculture and specializations related to urban agriculture • Provide support for vehicles transporting crops and reduce transportation costs and provide qualified warehouses designated for storage and packaging • Develop local plant varieties and animal breeds to increase production and productivity • Develop post-harvest services through improving packaging, grading, transportation, storage, and manufacturing • Enhance information availability on capabilities and provide a modern and up-to-date database • Expand the use of digital solutions such as e-commerce platforms • Reduce industrial costs by reducing taxes imposed on food factories and inviting them to exploit the largest available percentage of production capacity, adopting special prices for fuel (especially electricity) and supporting use of renewable energy equipment • Find working storage for Arab food factories in the manufacture of grains, sugar, oils, and edible fats, dairy, red meat, production of broiler chicken and table eggs236241243244245247248249251• Provision of financing mechanisms • Focus specializations in universities based on qualifications and available resources • Create youth leadership positions • Encourage self-production and educating consumers about the importance of supporting local products • Improving practical education on agriculture in communities, homes and buildings so that everyone can produce food • Strengthen effective social protection networks based on sustainable financial resources and enhance the concept of social security through the preparation and support of the food basket and food banks • Integrate social justice in the distribution and allocation of agricultural resources (land and water) • Implement digital solutions such as e-commerce platforms, digital payments and simple digital technologies to enable smallholders to access data and knowledge to make timely and informed decisions and to connect them directly with markets and finance • Focus on vulnerable groups, especially small farmers through providing support and financing and introducing modern technologies that increase productivity and production and improve their income. • Integrate disaster risk reduction considerations into sustainable development strategies and policies to mitigate losses. • Support animal breeders • Activate the role of food cooperatives • Resolve local and regional conflicts and alleviate the effects of wars, disasters and political sanctions to shift focus on productivity rather than conflicts • Provide basic services in the countryside and enhance the methods and tools of rural finance so that the rural producers can enter the countryside and engage in production • Support agri-food microfinance projects such as microfinance banks • Facilitate access to agricultural lands for young women • Promote and support women and youth participation in value chains by providing capital and financing mechanisms to invest in agriculture, as well as creating job opportunities and developing needed skills such as negotiation and project management. • Use of modern technology, creating appropriate conditions for rural employment, and ensuring the sustainability of supply chains for various agricultural products. • Review national legislations and regulations and integrate environmental protection policies adapting to climate change and limiting its effects, in line with the economic and social conditions of each Arab country.237238239240241242The participants were knowledgeable of the main challenges in the region and stressed on the need to have urgent action and implementation.

2021-04-16 15:05:24204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/1956/87

671102724550171681213441121542212147414935

Act with Urgency – In our background note and invite letter to the dialogue, we incorporated the sense of urgency with which the UN Food Systems Summit has been convened, as part of the Decade of Action to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030. We outlined the major crises facing our food systems today, and the pandemic’s role in exacerbating their effects. Commit to the Summit – The Dialogue materials we prepared emphasised the importance of the Dialogues in the Food Systems Summit process and explained that the conclusions from this dialogue would inform the outcomes of the UNFSS. Be Respectful – The Dialogue method, the introductory remarks of our Convenors and the skilful facilitation of our Facilitators set the tone as an open, respectful conversation rather than a debate. All discussions were respectful and collaborative, despite each discussion group having members with diverse perspectives. Recognize Complexity and Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity – We invited participants with varying positionalities across the food system, from researchers and policymakers to development practitioners and farmers. This facilitated discussion that recognised the complexities of food systems in India from the perspectives of different stakeholders. Complement the work of others – A major focus of the Dialogue was to discuss the learnings from programmes that are already being implemented. Many participants shared resources about initiatives being undertaken on the ground. Build Trust – We abided by the Chatham House rule, ensuring that social media posts about the Dialogue did not reference individual statements. Our Facilitators created a safe, open environment by encouraging participants to share their views and appreciating them for the same.As mentioned above.

Yes

234238239240241242244246249250As organizations that advocate for and work towards the interests of farmers and producers, we decided to organize an Independent Dialogue that would represent the farmers’ stakes in our food systems. In India, while there are separate policies on agriculture, food security and nutrition, the food systems approach is lacking. The problems of unsustainable production, producer's livelihoods, consumer welfare and the environment are often seen at odds with one another. However, these issues intersect for the farmer, who is both a producer and a consumer, and depends on the environment for their livelihood. Keeping this in mind, the focus of our dialogue was on ‘Building synergies between seemingly competing interests of production, consumption, livelihoods and the ecosystem’, in the Indian context. As the focus encompassed several major aspects of our food systems, it was decided to have discussions organized around the five Action Track Discussion Starter papers. The participants were assigned to five discussion groups based on their preference, which would each explore an Action Track. The objective of each group was to discuss the specific issues under each Action Track as well as the linkages (including trade-offs and synergies) with other Action Tracks. Each group also discussed the concrete actions/solutions that could be undertaken by different stakeholders in the food system, such as governments, producers, civil society and the food industry.235238239240241242244246249251The major findings from the Dialogue are detailed below: • The shift to agro ecological approaches and nature-positive production systems needs to be taken up on a priority basis. Scientific evidence and documentation of regenerative production practices are essential to facilitating this shift in policymaking and governance. • Although there is a need for a national level policies that facilitate the shift towards sustainable production and consumption, their implementation should be decentralized. National policies need to be flexible to accommodate the needs of local communities and the specificities of regional ecologies. • For decentralized implementation to be effective, local institutions and human resources need to be mobilized. In consumption, this can be done through existing government schemes such as the Public Distribution System (PDS), Anganwadi and mid-day meal schemes. • Empowerment of the community, and specific stakeholders such as farmers, women and consumers, should be encouraged through women's Self-Help Groups (SHGs) and Farmer Producer Organisations (FPOs) and consumer co-operatives. • Although there is a broad understanding of the problems in food systems, there is a strong need for workable, context specific solutions. The participants were requested to share breakthrough solutions that are already being implemented on the ground (some of these solutions are attached with this form). • Importance of diverse perspectives - The participants were also encouraged to hold similar dialogues with the stakeholder groups they work with, such as farmers, youth, indigenous people and women, so that these perspectives are also reflected in the Food Systems Summit. • Need for continuous engagement. It was also agreed that the engagement of relevant stakeholders on food systems issues should not be limited to the Dialogues or end with the Food Systems Summit, but continue as an essential part of food systems transformation.236238244246247249The discussion prompts for Discussion Group 1 are given below: Action Track 1 - Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all • Is this feasible or a utopian wish? Can we do something towards this: o For all involved in food production (as farmers, agricultural labourers, etc.) o For rural communities? • What are the best options to increase marginalised communities’ access to affordable, nutritious food? Would this be through food stamps, public distribution programmes, direct benefit transfers, or other measures? • How can we identify the major food safety issues (such as adulteration, contamination and antibiotic resistance) at production and post-production level? What are some of the low-hanging fruits that can be targeted to improve food safety? • Any other suggestions that AT1 must include in its mandate? • Any suggestions for other Action Tracks? The participants discussed the key challenges and solutions for ensuring access to safe and nutritious food for all. Actions were discussed in three broad areas: improving access to nutritious foods for marginalized and rural communities, increasing consumer demand for natural, sustainably produced food and enhancing food safety. In order to improve access to food and food security, participants suggested that the current production systems need to change and adopt agro ecological approaches. Government needs to play a role in incentivizing natural farming and setting up Farmer Producer Organisations (FPOs), especially for small and marginal farmers. They also recommended village/community level measures such as storage and distribution systems and backyard poultry for landless households. To increase demand and consumption of nutritious food, the discussants recommended measures such as awareness campaigns, decentralizing procurement and distribution under the Public Distribution System (PDS), strengthening local markets (such as mandis) for farm produce and ensuring cooked, healthy meals to children under the Anganwadi and Mid-Day Meal programmes. To enhance food safety, the measures recommended were government certification of organic products, soil testing and discouraging perverse incentives and subsidies (such as electricity and fertilizer subsidies) that encourage monoculture and industrial agriculture.236239243244246247249The discussion prompts for Discussion Group 2 are given below: Action Track 2 - Shift to Sustainable Consumption Patterns • What constitutes Sustainable Consumption Patterns? How can we move towards them? o Stricter governmental regulations? Or awareness campaigns and corporate volunteerism? o Taxing foods that have an adverse impact on health (such as ultra-processed food and food high in salt, sugar and fat) o How do we understand the role of advertising in encouraging consumption of unhealthy foods? Can we employ advertising to also discourage unhealthy food consumption? • How do we tackle food waste at various levels – post-production stage, supply chain, consumer, and retail? • Is the circular economy approach feasible? Roles of community organizations, civil society? • Any other suggestions that AT2 must include in its mandate? • Any suggestions for other Action Tracks? This discussion on AT2 revolved primarily around the question of how to define sustainable consumption and how can we move towards it. It was decided that sustainable consumption patterns would entail sustainability not just for the environment and the human body, but also over time. For this, changes needed to be made not just in production systems and government regulations but also in consumer behaviour. There was an understanding that our current food systems encourage the consumption of unhealthy, processed foods, which are not only more affordable than fresh, healthy food but also more aspirational. The role of advertising was debated in this context and the discussants agreed that punitive measures such as regulating advertisements or taxing unhealthy foods needed to be supplemented by constructive measures such as building awareness and providing affordable alternatives. Discussants also questioned the role of government in regulating food choices and consumption, as the Right to Food is recognized by the Indian constitution. The consensus was that the government’s role should involve providing information and awareness to consumers while also implementing behaviour change interventions such as removing sugary foods from checkout counters and promoting indigenous foods and kitchen gardens in schools. Government schemes and systems that are already in place, such as mid-day meals and Anganwadis, can be used to facilitate sustainable consumption at the local level. The discussants then returned to the question of who should decide the standards for healthy and sustainable diets. Everyone agreed that, while national frameworks are necessary, they need to be flexible to be adopted within local cultural and environmental contexts. Indigenous and traditional foods, wherever supported by science, should be promoted. The question of food waste was also discussed. The participants agreed that shorter value chains and the farm-to-fork approach would help in tackling food waste. Circular economy approaches should also be promoted, not just in terms of food but the overall capital of a community. The government could also play a role by regulating the food waste of food retail businesses, through certifications or ratings.236239240241243244245246249The discussion prompts for Discussion Group 3 are given below: Action Track 3 - Boost Nature-Positive Production • Can we improve crop intensity and productivity while protecting and restoring the environment? How? • Can we have production practices that help create resilience to climate change while also restoring degraded ecosystems? Examples? • What needs to be done to shift to nature-positive production? o Government steps to reduce the use of chemicals in agriculture and incentivise ecosystem services? o Local input-output shops, Champion Farmers, women’s SHGs, Farmers’ Collectives, digital platforms? • Any other suggestions that AT3 must include in its mandate? • Any suggestions for other Action Tracks? The discussion centred on the question of what measures should be taken to shift towards nature-positive production. Many discussants highlighted certain regenerative agriculture approaches such as Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF), which has been implemented in states like Andhra Pradesh and Kerala. It was agreed that there is a lack of proper scientific evidence and poor documentation of traditional natural farming practices. These should be taken up on a priority basis and disseminated to both farmers and policy makers. The importance of local level collectives such as FPOs, women's Self Help Groups (SHGs) and cooperatives in bringing about the transition to natural farming on the ground was acknowledged. The role of the government in this transition was also discussed, in terms of incentivizing and subsidizing natural farming (such as compensation for ecosystem services) instead of chemical intensive agriculture. Participants also spoke about the consumption side of the issue, as increasing the market demand for natural produce is equally important. This could be done through consumer awareness and increasing the affordability of such produce. At the same time, farmers’ incomes needed to be remunerative. Providing quality bio-inputs at low cost was also crucial to increasing farmers’ margins.236238241243244245246249251The discussion prompts for Discussion Group 4 are given below: Action Track 4 - Advance Equitable Livelihoods • How do we increase employment and incomes for farm-centric, sustainable rural livelihoods? o Repurposed agricultural supports and subsidies? • How do farmers realise better prices? o Market reforms, infrastructure and linkages? o Support prices? o Strengthened local food value chains, wet markets? o Individual and collective enterprises? • Should this be complemented by a welfare approach? o Universal Basic Income or Direct Benefit Transfers? o Interest subvention? • Any other suggestions that AT4 must include in its mandate? • Any suggestions for other Action Tracks? In this discussion, there were two main overarching concerns: that farmers are perceived as only ‘beneficiaries’ and not as producers, service providers and risk-taking entrepreneurs; and how should we value farmers’ contribution to the economy and ecology? The share of rural India in the national GDP is much smaller than the share of its population. This implies that, even if farmers were to get their fair portion of the consumer rupee, it might not amount to a substantial income redistribution. This calls for a more expansive understanding of the valuation of farmers’ contribution, to include ecosystem services as well as their produce. The solutions discussed for the above mentioned concerns included strengthening the local, circular economy, ensuring better price realization for farmers and creating equitable systems of production. This will involve knowledge generation at the grassroots level, enterprise development and infrastructure, all of which would require public investment. Crucial to such a transition would be farmers’ collectives and women’s SHGs, as a large proportion of small and marginal farmers are women. An appreciation for the ecological services provided by farmers should also be inculcated through mass consumer education, implemented through digital technologies. Finally, it should be remembered that the farmer is also a consumer and nutrition security should be ensured for farming households.236242244246249250The discussion prompts for Discussion Group 5 are given below: Action Track 5 - Build Resilience to Vulnerabilities, Shocks, and Stress • How do we prevent, cope with and mitigate the effects of shocks on vulnerable food systems actors (farmers, fishers, livestock owners)? o Social protection and safety net programmes? o Government level, community level? • Can we have food value chains resilient to economic and environmental shocks such as the recession or global pandemics? o Production-to-consumption? o Local food value chains? • How do we ensure food security for ecologically vulnerable and socially marginalised communities (such as indigenous farmers, coastal communities and nomadic pastoralists)? o Specific strategies? o Roles of communities, civil society, Governments? • Any other suggestions that AT5 must include in its mandate? • Any suggestions for other Action Tracks? Resilience and sustainability were two important keywords that anchored this discussion. The challenges of ensuring both resilience and sustainability, especially for marginalized and indigenous people, were discussed. Two closely linked approaches, of diversification and decentralization, emerged from the discussion. Diversity involved acknowledging the diversity of agro-ecologies in India and the world, and recognizing that diverse, localized approaches needed to be taken. Transitioning away from the monoculture, rice-wheat model of the Green Revolution would require crop diversification according to the local environment. This would not only ensure carbon sequestration but also lead to increased diversity of foods consumed. There was a consensus among the participants that production and consumption systems needed to be decentralized. This was further emphasized by the pandemic, where local supply chains became important. National and state policies needed to focus more on the principles of action and the outcomes rather than the inputs. Investing in local capacity building and consumer education would also facilitate decentralization.237238239240241242244246247249251Despite the presence of diverse stakeholders, there were no major areas of divergence during the Dialogue. There was a broad consensus on the main issues with our food systems and the direction of their transformation. All participants were in agreement on the main findings of the Dialogue, especially on the urgent need to shift to regenerative agriculture, to empower small producers and women, to decentralize the implementation of government schemes and to build consumer awareness. There was also consensus on the ideal vision of a sustainable, equitable food system: which regenerates the environment, ensures decent incomes and livelihoods for producers, and facilitates access to and consumption of nutritious, safe food.

2021-04-16 16:02:37204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/2060/203

400619810103001511216173712111023211

Act with Urgency – In our background note and invite letter to the dialogue, we incorporated the sense of urgency with which the UN Food Systems Summit has been convened, as part of the Decade of Action to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030. We outlined the major crises facing our food systems today, and the pandemic’s role in exacerbating their effects. Commit to the Summit – The Dialogue materials we prepared emphasised the importance of the Dialogues in the Food Systems Summit process and explained that the conclusions from this dialogue would inform the outcomes of the UNFSS. Be Respectful – The Dialogue method, the introductory remarks of our Convenors and the skilful facilitation of our Facilitators set the tone as an open, respectful conversation rather than a debate. All discussions were respectful and collaborative, despite each discussion group having members with diverse perspectives. Recognize Complexity and Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity – We invited participants with varying positionalities in the food system, from researchers and policymakers to development practitioners and farmers. This facilitated discussion that recognised the complexities of food systems in the Global South from the perspectives of different stakeholders. Complement the work of others – A major focus of the Dialogue was to discuss the learnings from programmes that are already being implemented. Many participants shared resources about initiatives being undertaken on the ground. Build Trust – We abided by the Chatham House rule, ensuring that social media posts about the Dialogue did not reference individual statements. Our Facilitators created a safe, open environment by encouraging participants to share their views and appreciating them for the sameAs mentioned above.

Yes

234238239240241242244246249250As organizations that advocate for and work towards the interests of farmers and producers in India, we believed it necessary to organize an Independent Dialogue that would represent the farmers’ stakes in our food systems. The problems of unsustainable production, producer’s livelihoods, consumer welfare and the environment are often seen at odds with one another. However, these issues intersect for the farmer, who is both a producer and a consumer, and depends on the environment for his/her livelihood. This is especially important in the context of the Global South, where large populations depend on agriculture for their livelihood. Keeping this in mind, the focus of our dialogue was on ‘Building synergies between seemingly competing interests of production, consumption, livelihoods and the ecosystem’. The geographical scope of our dialogue was Asia and Africa. Although the two continents comprise diverse ecologies and cultures, there are many similarities in our food systems that made our discussion a rich source of insights and learning. As the focus encompassed several major aspects of our food systems, it was decided to have discussions organized around the five Action Track Discussion Starter papers. The five Action Tracks of the UNFSS served as the basis for the discussion topics. The Dialogue participants were requested to indicate an Action Track of their preference. As most of our participants indicated their preference for Action Tracks 1, 3 and 5, we decided to coalesce the Action Tracks into 4 Discussion groups: • Discussion Group 1 - AT1 (Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all) and AT2 (Shift to sustainable consumption patterns) • Discussion Groups 2a and 2b - AT3 (Boost nature-positive production) • Discussion Group 3 - AT4 (Advance equitable livelihoods) and AT5 (Build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress) The Discussion Starter paper for their preferred Action Track was then shared with them, which formed the basis for the discussion. The objective of each group was to discuss the specific issues under the Action Tracks as well as the linkages (including trade-offs and synergies) with other Action Tracks. Each group also discussed the concrete actions/solutions that could be undertaken by different stakeholders in the food system, such as governments, producers, civil society and the food industry.235238239240241242244245246249251The major findings from the Dialogue are detailed below: • Nature-positive Production - The shift to agro ecological approaches and nature-positive production systems (such as regenerative or conservation agriculture) needs to be taken up on a priority basis. This transition needs to go hand in hand with a change in the narrative around farming in the Global South. Agriculture is often associated with poverty, and adopting nature-based approaches could help change this to one of pride and joy. • Traditional Knowledge - Indigenous knowledge and traditional production practices should be conserved and promoted, as they are nature-friendly and sensitive to local ecologies. This is often validated by modern science as well. Thus, indigenous and scientific knowledge should be considered equally important in research and policymaking. • Empowerment of Stakeholders – Any transition has to be community-driven to be sustainable over time. Thus, communities should be empowered to take ownership of this transition. This could be facilitated through capacity building and collectivizing schemes for specific stakeholders such as farmers, women, youth and consumers (such as women Self-Help Groups (SHGs), Farmer Producer Organisations (FPOs) and consumer co-operatives). • Improving Access and Affordability – One of the major challenges in implementing and scaling food systems initiatives is the lack of access or affordability of resources. On the consumption side, this manifests in lack of affordability/availability of safe, nutritious foods. On the production side, this could manifest in smallholder producers’ lack of access to knowledge or quality organic inputs. Thus, efforts should be directed towards improving access to resources for marginalized communities, through initiatives such as fair price shops or facilitating local production and sale of organic inputs. • Role of Technology – Digital technology can be a useful tool in disseminating information, improving access to resources, and reducing the gender gap in agriculture. • Funding – Funding for non-conventional food systems initiatives, such as regenerative agriculture, is often difficult to source. Linking grassroots organizations with donors or financial institutions that work in sustainable finance could be a solution. Banks and NBFCs should also be incentivized to provide credit to small farmers, for use in nature-positive production. • Need for continuous engagement - The engagement of relevant stakeholders on food systems issues should not be limited to the Dialogues or end with the Food Systems Summit, but continue as an essential part of food systems transformation.236238239244246249The discussion prompts for Discussion Group 1 are given below: Action Track 1 - Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all • Is this feasible or a utopian wish? Can we do something towards this: o For all involved in food production (as farmers, agricultural labourers) o For rural communities? • What are the options to increase marginalised communities’ access to affordable, nutritious food? Would this be through food stamps, public distribution programmes, direct benefit transfers, or other measures? • How can we identify the major food safety issues (such as adulteration, contamination and antibiotic resistance) at production and post-production level? What are some of the low-hanging fruits that can be targeted to improve food safety? • Any other suggestions that AT1 or the other Action Tracks must include in their mandate? Action Track 2 - Shift to Sustainable Consumption Patterns • What constitutes Sustainable Consumption Patterns? How can we move towards them? o Stricter governmental regulations? Or awareness campaigns and corporate volunteerism? o Taxing foods that have an adverse impact on health (such as ultra-processed food and food high in salt, sugar and fat) o How do we understand the role of advertising in encouraging consumption of unhealthy foods? Can we employ advertising to also discourage unhealthy food consumption? • How do we tackle food waste at various levels – post-production stage, supply chain, consumer, and retail? • Is the circular economy approach feasible? Roles of community organizations, civil society? • Any other suggestions that AT2 or the other Action Tracks must include in their mandate? What are the synergies and trade-offs between ATs 1 and 2? How can they be maximized/minimised? Concerning AT1, the participants agreed that providing access to safe, nutritious food to all was achievable, but required significant policy shifts and ground level changes. One of the most important steps towards this is to localize food value chains and public distribution programmes. This would lead to less food loss, sustainable, nutrition-sensitive agriculture, and a more resilient food system. The participants highlighted the importance of building resilience in light of the Covid-19 pandemic, which severely undermined nutrition security for millions in Asia and Africa. Regarding the issue of food safety, the participants emphasized the importance of incorporating traditional, indigenous knowledge with scientific knowledge. This information should be disseminated to consumers through food safety awareness campaigns. The food safety polices and implementing bodies (such as FSSAI in India ) need to be strengthened to tackle systemic issues such as adulteration and chemical residues in food. Along with this, the safety of air and water should also be ensured, as they can affect the health benefits accrued from safe, nutritious food. The participants then addressed the issue of transitioning to sustainable and nutritious consumption patterns. Diversifying and localizing diets was seen as the way forward. Globalization and industrialization have resulted in increased consumption of processed foods in both Asia and Africa. This results in processed food being more affordable than fresh, organic produce, disproportionately affecting the health of the marginalized poor. Thus, governments should encourage the production and consumption of locally sourced foods. The group suggested producers and consumers should be organized into institutional collectives, which need to work together to better our food systems.236240244245246249251The discussion prompts for Discussion Group 2a are given below: Action Track 3 - Boost Nature-Positive Production • Can we improve crop intensity and productivity while protecting and restoring the environment? How? • Can we have production practices that help create resilience to climate change while also restoring degraded ecosystems? Examples? • What needs to be done to shift to nature-positive production? o Government steps to reduce the use of chemicals in agriculture and incentivise ecosystem services? o Local input-output shops, Champion Farmers, women’s SHGs, Farmers’ Collectives, digital platforms? • Can we have nature-positive integrated production with sustainable, decent incomes and livelihoods to producers? Examples? • Any other suggestions that AT3 or the other Action Tracks must include in their mandate? In this discussion, participants concurred on the need to change the narrative around farming such that parents can actually encourage their children to pursue it. In most parts of Asia and Africa, farming is associated with pain and poverty. Moving away from conventional farming practices could help change this narrative to one of hope and productivity. Participants pointed out that current farming policy often incentivizes chemically intensive agriculture, and concrete actions need to be taken to encourage nature-positive approaches, such as minimum tillage and conservation agriculture. Rwanda’s Green Growers initiative was brought up as an example of such a policy action. Policy that incentivized funding for non-conventional agriculture was also crucial. The importance of indigenous knowledge was also recognised in this transition, as traditional farming practices were more ecologically sensitive and sustainable. There is an urgent need to actively conserve and promote such indigenous knowledge, which is rapidly dying out due to the pressures of food security and commercialization. The discussants then brought up the many implementation challenges that they had observed at the ground level. In the African context, smallholder farmers lack access to resources and policy support to make the transition to sustainable production. Intensive capacity building (such as educating farmers on effective farming practices) and providing access to resources (such as markets and value chains) were required to overcome these hurdles. Technology was also considered as a tool to increase access to resources, and to reduce the gender gap in agriculture. The participants agreed that any change had to be community-driven to be sustainable over time. Thus, communities needed to be empowered to take ownership of this transition through FPOs, women's SHGs and other collectivizing schemes. Informal/formal networks for resource and equipment sharing would also help make this transition sustainable over time.236240244246249251The discussion prompts for Discussion Group 2a are given below: Action Track 3 - Boost Nature-Positive Production • Can we improve crop intensity and productivity while protecting and restoring the environment? How? • Can we have production practices that help create resilience to climate change while also restoring degraded ecosystems? Examples? • What needs to be done to shift to nature-positive production? o Government steps to reduce the use of chemicals in agriculture and incentivise ecosystem services? o Local input-output shops, Champion Farmers, women’s SHGs, Farmers’ Collectives, digital platforms? • Can we have nature-positive integrated production with sustainable, decent incomes and livelihoods to producers? Examples? • Any other suggestions that AT3 or the other Action Tracks must include in their mandate? The participants began by addressing the question of whether it was possible to shift to nature-positive production while maintaining productivity. The example of regenerative agriculture was brought up, which can be undertaken even in dryland ecologies. This type of production is environment friendly while also increasing productivity and profitability. A few participants spoke of their personal experience as farmers practicing conservation agriculture in India. They had seen improved yields, soil health and fertility and increased incomes. Another participant illustrated the experience of Thailand in implementing integrated land and water management in agriculture. The participants noted that traditional farming practices are also regenerative and scientific concepts such as permaculture and agroecology validate their significance. Thus, communities should be empowered to revive their indigenous knowledge to improve both human and planetary health. The participants then discussed the implementation and scaling challenges for nature-positive approaches. Currently, the commercialization of agriculture has led to chemical intensive mono-cropping. This can make communities more vulnerable to shocks such as drought and famine, as history has often demonstrated (for instance, the Irish potato famine). It was agreed that the first requirement for the transition was the empowerment of small farmers. This would require support through policy instruments and collectivizing institutions such as cooperatives and FPOs. The lack of access or affordability of organic inputs was another constraint preventing the large-scale adoption of nature-based production. The setting up of Bio-input shops at the local level (as in Andhra Pradesh) could be a policy instrument to encourage natural farming and boost the village economy. The involvement of youth was also considered crucial in facilitating the shift. The participants also recognised the importance of creating solutions that are sensitive to local contexts and ecologies.236241242244245246249251The discussion prompts for Discussion Group 3 are given below: Action Track 4 - Advance Equitable Livelihoods • How do we increase employment and incomes for farm-centric, sustainable rural livelihoods? o Repurposed agricultural supports and subsidies? • How do farmers realise better prices? o Market reforms, infrastructure and linkages? o Support prices? o Strengthened local food value chains, wet markets? o Individual and collective enterprises? • Should this be complemented by a welfare approach? o Universal Basic Income or Direct Benefit Transfers? o Interest subvention? • Any other suggestions that AT4 or the other Action Tracks must include in their mandate? Action Track 5 - Build Resilience to Vulnerabilities, Shocks, and Stress • How do we prevent, cope with and mitigate the effects of shocks on vulnerable food systems actors (farmers, fishers, livestock owners)? o Social protection and safety net programmes? o Government level, community level? • Can we have food value chains resilient to economic and environmental shocks such as the recession or global pandemics? o Production-to-consumption? o Local food value chains? • How do we ensure food security for ecologically vulnerable and socially marginalised communities (such as indigenous farmers, coastal communities and nomadic pastoralists)? o Specific strategies? o Roles of communities, civil society, Governments? • Any other suggestions that AT5 or the other Action Tracks must include in their mandate? What are the synergies and trade-offs between ATs 4 and 5? What can be done to maximise synergies and minimise trade-offs? This group began the discussion by recognizing the complexity of the interconnections between various aspects of food systems. The importance of learning from nature, linking indigenous knowledge to modern science and disseminating it with the help of digitalization were also acknowledged. The participants then discussed the benefits of knowledge intensive and regenerative agriculture. This kind of agriculture encourages carbon sequestration, which in turn increases the groundwater table (for every gram of carbon sequestered, the soil can hold 8 grams more water). Regenerative agriculture also improves the soil microbiome. These can lead to greater resilience of farming to climate change and also decrease the chance of zoonosis like Covid-19. The practicalities of promoting and implementing regenerative agriculture were then discussed. A crucial question was how these schemes would be funded. Participants suggested linking grassroots organisations in need of funding with financial/donor institutions that are looking to finance green initiatives. An example was Microsoft, which recently gave 1 billion US dollars to companies that were showing long-term carbon sequestration, to help them achieve their net zero carbon goals. It was also necessary to empower communities and facilitate development that spreads from farmer to farmer. Women’s SHGs and farmers could be considered as the unit of knowledge transfer. Universities could be enlisted to provide financial and capacity building training to these communities. The idea that farming is a business that has to provide financial as well as ecological returns should be mainstreamed.237238239240241242244245246249251Despite the presence of diverse stakeholders from diverse geographies, there were no major areas of divergence during the Dialogue. There was a broad consensus on the main issues with our food systems and the direction of their transformation. All participants were in agreement on the main findings of the Dialogue, especially on the urgent need to shift to regenerative agriculture, to empower small producers and women through collectivization, to conserve and promote traditional knowledge and to improve access to resources for marginalized communities. There was also consensus on the ideal vision of a sustainable, equitable food system: which regenerates the environment, ensures decent incomes and livelihoods for producers, and facilitates access to and consumption of nutritious, safe food.

2021-04-18 09:01:18205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/7967/39

7564425561924122221122111432623843111619

The dialogue was directed at engaging government staff in the dialogues and broadening their understanding of food systems. For this purpose, invitations were issued widely to allow interested staff to join the event and invitation letters were also sent to key ministries to request that the Ministers allocate staff to join for the purposes of formal representation. Key ministries involved in food production, processing and regulation of markets were specifically invited and given opportunity to present information on the role of the ministry in the food system. The Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, the Ministry of Industry, Science, Technology and Innovation and the Ministry of Commerce accepted the invitations and presented an account of their role. This was to incorporate principles of inclusivity, to gain commitment to the summit and for building trust amongst government staff. This is necessary because the COVID-19 situation has prevented the conduct of a high-profile event involving senior government officials across the range of ministries engaged in the food system.The presentations from the representatives of three ministries reflected a commitment to the dialogues on their part and the wide interest of other government staff to join the event also showed interest on the part of many staff, including at least 14 ministries and institutions and a number of senior officials. The event was successful in building a climate of trust for the staff present and their participation in subsequent events will be the test of the commitment to the dialogues. Although the starting point for many participants was that their existing strategies and plans are all that is needed for planning to 2030, there was some understanding amongst participants that recognition of complexity and learning from new ideas and approaches may yield new insights and contribute to a more sustainable food system. There will be an ongoing challenge for stakeholders to acknowledge that concepts such as food systems may make a substantive contribution, and for them not to fear that new thinking challenges the existing order or the basis for the current planning and policy.Pay particular attention to securing broad, high level understanding and engagement. This will help to reduce the threat posed by 'new' paradigms for dealing with complexity. If the education system and academia are rooted in reductionist thinking and a prevailing orthodoxy of positivist science, there will be a challenge for the technical and scientific communities to accept a systems approach deliberately embracing complexity. This challenge will likely extend beyond scientific discussion into the political arena as points of disagreement and trade-offs are brought to the surface and openly discussed. Prepare yourself for handling the discomfort that accompanies transformational thinking. Try to keep discussion focused on 'real' issues and experience, allow differences in points of view to be recorded and leave the resolution of differences to other forums. Leave room in the agenda for contributions from women and youth and for consideration of issues that may be overshadowed by the mainstream voices in a crowded event.

Yes

234238239240241242244246248249The focus of this event was to introduce the food systems dialogues to technical staff from the line ministries and relevant institutions, to provide a basic explanation for the food system and to give key ministries an opportunity to describe their role in food systems. The dialogue was very broad and designed to serve as an entry point for many government staff who are likely to be involved in the in-depth dialogues over coming months.235238239242246248249There is much discussion with ministries required to explain food systems, to determine the legitimacy of any outputs of the dialogue and the relationship of the vision and the roadmap to existing strategic planning. The dialogue will help determine the need for changes in the food system to promote sustainability and allow government, civil society and the private sector to discuss these matters. The dialogues will encourage thinking beyond existing approaches and recognition of new challenges. All stakeholders must join hands and act to address the issues of increasing population and demand for food, malnutrition in all forms, natural resource degradation and food losses and waste. Improved production capabilities have created surpluses of commodities for export and production continues to increase. The agriculture sector will focus on increasing the competitiveness of value chains; improving the resilience of infrastructure and trade facilitation; sustainable management of land, forests and fisheries; and improving the institutional and legal framework and capacities of human resources. In relation to food processing, the Ministry of Industry, Science, Technology and Innovation provides technical support for factories and for small and medium enterprises involved in food services. MISTI is focused on value creation, an area for great potential increases in the contribution of agriculture to the national economy. The Ministry of Commerce and the Cambodia Import Export Inspection and Fraud Repression Directorate in particular are deeply involved in issues relating to governance of the trade aspects of the food system. The Ministry of Commerce also provides a virtual food reserve system under management of Green Trade, monitors and responds to fluctuations in food prices in the markets, controls food losses and wastage, and regulates markets for food safety and for consumer protection. The Ministries recognise the multi-agency system is complex and requires cooperation along the value chain to ensure food quality and safety standards.236238239240241242244246248249THE VISION FOR SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS FOR 2030 The vision should centre on ensuring sufficient safe and nutritious food for local needs of all Cambodians and a surplus for export. The farm to table approach should be promoted to manage food safety and quality. The food system should also be adapted to climate change and to reduced environmental impacts. Use local and indigenous crops and varieties to develop greater resilience in food systems and to promote nutrition. Maintain emergency reserves of seed and other supplies to assist farmers in the event of disasters. The food system should be independent and autonomous in food production and distribution and the management of waste. As much as possible the Cambodian food system should be independent of food from other countries. Promote local production. The promotion of local produce should also emphasize organic production methods.236238239241246248249251HOW TO ADDRESS THE CHANGES REQUIRED TO ACHIEVE THE VISION Ensure collaboration between the public and private sector is vital, with continuing opportunities for multi-stakeholder discussions and information sharing. This is critical for a consistent approach when doing business with trade partners. Recognise the importance of consumers in the food system and provide consumer education to help consumers to access a healthy diet. There should be a fundamental change in emphasis away from a production driven system to one that is responsive to consumer demand. Invest in new technologies and research to keep up with the challenges and the farmers and businesses involved must be kept informed. There will be fewer and fewer farmers as we move forwards, greater returns to labour through mechanization and technology are necessary to keep up. We need to make a special effort to attract and retain youth in employment within the food system. Invest in the human resources to support new technology and innovation. Relevant laws need to be enforced. There is no need to wait until 2030 to achieve the vision, every Ministry should have their own roadmap and be working on these issues.237Some representatives argue that it is not necessary to conduct food systems dialogues. The National Planning Process under the National Strategic Development Plan and Sectoral policies and plans already in place will guide the nation towards a prosperous and sustainable future. This is partly related to the systems nature of the dialogue which by definition is multi-sectoral and challenging to some entrenched sectoral interests. Nevertheless, the discussions were rich and generated many points of common interest.

2021-04-18 09:16:13205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/7957/39

78022461041371411302312621238111223221613

The dialogue was organised by the SUN Civil Society Alliance (CSA) specifically to collect more views from local and international NGOs so as to more deeply embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity and also to secure more participation of women. By working through the SUN CSA, there is a strong element of trust from the members and this is expected to lead to greater commitment to the dialogues on the part of civil society. The involvement of high level government officials in the opening helps also build trust on the part of government that the dialogue is open and constructive.Introduction by senior representative of the SUN CSA and by senior representatives of government encouraged trust and respect for all parties and emphasised the importance of listening to the whole diversity of views, Participants were reminded that it is possible for us to disagree in the dialogues without be disagreeable. Facilitators were careful to ensure that different viewpoints did not dissolve into arguments back and forth and that the participants respected one another's rights to express their views without need for contradiction by other participants. The whole process reflected adherence to these principles.Allow ample time for the discussion sessions and the information shared will be rich in detail and diversity of ideas.

Yes

234238239240241242244246249251The Vision for Sustainable Food Systems for Cambodia and how to achieve that vision.235238239240241242244246249Points were raised to address all action tracks and these different tracks are well suited for organising the result into a roadmap. The ideas for developing the vision and the roadmap included points relating to each of the tracks. Access to safe and nutritious food for all Cambodians at all times was a key concern. The suggestions relating to production were strongly oriented around the protection of smallholders interests and local production, promoting consumption of local produced food with supporting argument that this food is of better quality and safety. It was recognised that more information and a supportive environment were need to guide production, processing and marketing to be profitable and sustainable in other dimensions both environmental and cultural. There was support for existing regulations, with suggestions that enforcement should be increased and that new legislation of regulations may be required to protect producers and consumers. Improved livelihoods for farmers and small enterprises are widely supported, with many responsibilities directed to government and for greater investment on the part of the private sector. It was recognised that the sustainable food system must be profitable for the private sector, or they will not find be supportive. Social protection was also recognised as an important tool in providing for the most vulnerable, especially in the context of the COVID Pandemic. Climate change is acknowledged as an ongoing threat to the food system, noting that farmers are not receptive to reduced returns or higher cost of climate smart technologies because they are living under short term pressures to survive. The participants widely supported multi-sectoral collaboration and the existence of multi-stakeholder platforms to unify the efforts of Government, Civil Society and other development partners. They were particularly concerned that these efforts must extend to the sub-national level where the implementation of policies and plans is most challenging. The participants were concerned that the funding of CSOs is becoming more challenging, whereas their role is more exacting and even more relevant under current conditions.236238239240241248249Topic 1: A VISION FOR SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS FOR CAMBODIA. • The vision for 2030 should consider all three main components of the food system, the food chain (processing, packaging, distribution, markets and recycling and composting), the food environment, and consumer behaviour. A multi-sectoral approach is needed. • By 2030, we should see an end to hunger and achieve food security. The system should provide food access year round for all people. • Promote sustainable food production, more diversified production and a smarter agriculture system should be more helping farmers to be resilient to the climate change. • Supporting local production as local products don’t really compete with imported products. Food should be locally grown and people should have the capacity to grow these foods so it benefits their community. This also depends on geography and scale, so people need to know what’s feasible in their context, and how they can source things needed from nearby communities. Market systems need to be more connected (e.g. producer associations, active linkage of supply chain etc.). • Overall, ensure quality for consumers. Need to ensure the quality of products that are going to market and the population has access to safe food – they know what they are buying and they know it is safe. It also needs to be affordable. • Increase the nutritional value of foods and ensure consumers are more aware of its importance. Production of more sustainable and nutritious foods, we need more legumes/nuts so more people will eat them. Increase the diversity of foods locally produced and available (yams, nuts, legumes). Help to make all stakeholders aware of the importance of food systems for production and healthy diets. Education about food, why it is important to eat different types of food and how they can support local people. • Take into account the political economy, resource allocation decisions, implementation mechanisms and funding when shaping the food system. Food security and nutrition policy making should be matched by good practice. Need to talk about emerging problems – realize the current policies for changing diets, COVID-19 recovery and economic growth • Profits and affordability of the foods will drive the food system of the future. Education is important but if farmers do not profit by growing healthier foods, they won’t be grown. • Monitor the quality and safety of food exports and imports • Restore infrastructure to support food production and distribution including roads and irrigation systems. • Recycle food waste instead of lowering food prices or throwing food away • WASH is an important element of agriculture and food safety to protect food from contamination. • Nutrition is linked to so many topics, so partnership between organisations to cover the different thematic aspects of nutrition will continue to be an important aspect of food systems into the future.236238239240241244246249WHAT WORKS ABOUT OUR CURRENT FOOD SYSTEM? WHAT ASPECTS DO WE WANT TO KEEP? • Resources for land, forest, water are limited so we need to keep a focus on natural resource conservation. • 2nd National Strategy for Food Security and Nutrition – is good for the food system. Promotes food linkages and planning. Drivers include who’s linked in to implementation. • Current policy and strategy show twin tracks – strategy framework is cross cutting and multi-sectoral. • There are coordinators at the local and district level for market linkages who could be attached to existing cooperatives. They earn commission from their sales, so they are paid by the coop. It is a self-sustaining mechanism that could be considered for scale-up. • Social protection programming can help contribute to accessibility of nutritious foods. We can make social protection more nutrition-sensitive. There is good link between government and civil society for establishment of PWG-FSN and roll-out of the sub-national coordination platforms nationally. This will be good to improve FSN in Cambodia. • Local food systems should be protected. Family farms contributes to income across the country so this should be protected. Keep families and communities involved in the food system. Continue to support and strengthen local farmers first – diversify among local farmers first. • Current strength is engaged and strong civil society on the topic. There are two positives at the local level right now: 1) knowledge of people. When they go to the market they are looking and asking for local products. These products can be more expensive than imports but they are considered to be safe and organic. 2) the government creating more projects to boost food security at MAFF and MoC to boost food availability. • Forming agricultural cooperatives among local producers is a big positive. Agricultural cooperatives under MAFF are well organised and connected at the community level. If we could build the capacity of these and their connections to MFI it would build on what is existing and improve what is available. • Projects like ASPIRE and AIM (MAFF, MoC and IFAD) focused on markets linkages and smaller weekend markets to sell these products. Previous projects have been successful and it would be great to see more. • To strengthen, need to work with both buyers and producers, and link them together. If we can coordinate farming contracts it creates mutually beneficial supply partnership for necessary goods. Now we are working on matching buyers at local and provincial level to learn what buyers want to buy and the characteristics of it, then connect them to farmers. Agricultural cooperatives are useful for this. There are also informal groups in the community that can be engaged. Farming contracts would help people to know what they need to grow and guarantee a steady income. • Think about education levels – and the role of social media for education, even in low literacy places • There can be effective response to harmful marketing – example of breastmilk substitutes236239240242244248WHAT DOES NOT WORK WELL IN THE CURRENT FOOD SYSTEM? • Need to think about transportation and distribution of food. Farmers don’t always know where to share their products. Create an enabling environment for low cost transportation options to allow farmers to reach other provinces or districts. • Build on the current system and strategy and expand distribution and transportation linkages at local/subnational level. • Farmers often consider climate smart techniques to be more time and labour heavy. So they may turn to other options like improved seed. The success of different techniques like types of compost and fertilisers depended on the area and what the farmer had access to. • Agriculture techniques training is mainly focused on the national manual. For the indigenous people, there are local foods that need to be preserved/conserved. This is not included in any training manual. We should research this and consider the creation of a manual for indigenous foods. There isn’t enough documentation on how these foods are used for nutrition/dietary needs in indigenous communities either. • Tackle the problem of highly processed foods flooding the market. Cambodia is 10-15 years behind on this front, so it’s an opportunity to slow down that change. • Food production focuses on profit not nutrition or sustainability of it • How to educate farmers beyond what is trendy and to encourage diversified production • We need to Increase access to food – regardless of living in rural or urban area • Need systems to control the quality of the product, especially food safety and improve the market for chemical-free products236238246249WHAT WILL WE DO FOR FOOD SAFETY? • Need to strengthen enforcement of consumer protection laws, which are endorsed by the King. Build awareness what the consequences of not following the law would be. • The laws regulating breastmilk substitute supplies need to be enforced across the country • Looking into how to increase shelf life of processed foods without sacrificing nutrition. Need to also build education on safe packaging • Labelling is important • Improving agriculture production with quality and safety. Increasing awareness of rural people on nutrition and promoting vegetable and fruit production for household consumption to reduce migration and increase access to safe food. Ensuring all means to monitor local production and increasing education on health and safety food. • WASH education is a large part of food safety. Where to get water? How to clean produce before going to market? However there are not enough materials to advocate for this at the community level with farmers. Having these would be very helpful. • Food safety needs to be sensitized from national to sub-national levels. For example, unsafe food is still available and can be found at schools in rural areas. • Imported products need to be checked on quality. • Food safety needs to be considered to ensure safe food and good health of people and creating markets for agricultural products. • Providing training on food production and encouraging people to apply the techniques. • Raising awareness of food systems in Cambodia such as packaging and food processing. Involve youth in raising awareness on food systems. • Ensuring food hygiene such as washing hand before food preparation. • Effective promotion of healthy diets and food safety to youth.236238239240241242245246249Topic 2: HOW TO ACHIEVE THE VISION? • Education and consumer awareness for improving eating habits, behaviour change and healthy eating. Awareness raising about healthy diets, eating a variety of vegetables and meat in moderation to strengthen the immune system in order to prevent non-communicable diseases as well as other diseases and maintain a healthy lifestyle. • People need to eat healthy diets but they also need to make sure it is safe • Promoting and supporting exclusive breastfeeding for babies in the first six months and complementary feeding for children aged from 6 months with continued breastfeeding up to 2 years or beyond. • Promote sustainable and effective food production chain. Include actions toward zero waste through reducing the use of plastic, recycle food waste (Reuse, reduce, recycle). Maintain good waste management through correct storage and disposal. • Expanded irrigation systems are needed for increasing food production. • Food production training and guidelines for farmers. • Building networks among producers, processors and retailers and providing technical guidelines (food processing, recycling foods, food hygiene are current gaps). • Food fortification should be highlighted. Foods should be fortified before being supplied to the community. • Looking at food supplies that go through the social protection system is important to make sure the ID Poor are adequately supplied and that children particularly aren’t slipping in malnutrition. In situations like COVID-19, the poor are among the first people affected • Expanded school feeding program, particularly among remote communities. MoEYS should integrate food safety and nutrition, healthy diets, BMI calculation and school wash program into the school curriculum. There should be hand washing station, gardens and kitchen at school. Enforce the guidelines from school health department, especially directive No 18 of MoEYS. • There should be investment in public awareness through media/advertising campaigns. • Need for strengthened healthcare and increased funding. There is prioritisation among Health Centres to only give RUTFs to SAM children, rather than MAM due to budget restrictions. • Drink clean drinking water, live cleanly and maintain good hygiene. Promote behaviour change to other stakeholders using top-down approach. Start from ourselves and become a good example in order to influence others • Public policy must have one shared goal and stakeholder advocacy is very crucial for financial support. Second NSFSN is the main strategy for doing this. We cannot apply implementation without NADP (mid-term review?) for sustainable implementation in Cambodia. Decentralization of the strategy is critical. • Need to continue coordination and focus on working together for implementation (subnational authority, various ministries, NGOs, INGOs, UN actors, private sector, etc.). Need to coordinate and look for resources (human and financial) to implement policies, strategies and action plans. Also need to look at political, cultural and economic aspects to ensure food availability at all times.236238239241245246WHAT KIND OF TOOLS CAN WE USE? GOVERNANCE AND FINANCE • Need to build a country road map. • Identify key stakeholders within the government. • CARD should coordinate among different ministries. • Need greater participation across the country and need to get the private sector included into these conversations early and productively. GOVERNANCE (laws and regulations, markets, social protection, community) • Multi-stakeholder commitments are required to achieve the vision. • Enforcing existing laws and making amendments to law to support the vision. • Supporting local products to motivate producers and reduce migration. • Ensuring genuine products with proper labels and food certificates. • Raising awareness of food safety directive to sellers before imposing penalty. • Developing mechanisms and strengthening food monitoring by officials. • Encouraging positive involvement from the private sector and all stakeholders to promote the food systems vision . • Institutionalising nutrition into national and sub-national planning and budgeting is important. Capacity building for commune councilors on food systems leadership. MoI is a key stakeholder. • Forming clusters of producers in the commune/sangkat ensure markets for agricultural products. • Civil society should work closely with the government on evidence-based advocacy. Evidence should be disaggregated by province/area, nutrition issue etc. and should address budget. Necessary to know current budget figures to advocate for increased spending. • Success in the community is mainly based on civil society interventions. As funding is scarce and interventions are becoming more limited, we should advocate to donors for more funds for civil society to continue our roles and responsibilities • Strengthening the effectiveness of Sub-decree 133 implementation for regulation of BMS. Can build on the experience with breastmilk substitutes and apply learnings to other products • Use a participatory guarantee system (PGS) based on trust between producers and consumers as an effective local quality control mechanism. • Examine ways to ensure communities and enterprises are benefiting from the one product/one village (OVOP) scheme. • Supporting social welfare to ensure everybody has access to food. FINANCE (taxes, subsidies, profits, incentives) • Incentives such as subsidies, low interest loans or market linkages to encourage farmers to grow nutritious foods • Make use of tax deductions to encourage processing and value adding • Need to shift the belief that private sector already has incentive through their profit motive. Discuss this more with private sector, particularly related to processing • Multisectoral collaboration to promote local products • Provide clear definitions for incentives. • A more protective policy for the domestic market would help to protect local products. There is also a need for increased food safety governance/verification on imported products. • Preventing food imports and reducing price of imported agricultural inputs. • Setting up export associations to ensure fair price for local products. • Savings groups work well, but there is a need for the commune to be involved to support the sustainability of these services. • There is a need for more research and investment. Stakeholders cooperating and sharing information is especially important.236243248251WHAT KIND OF TOOLS CAN WE USE? (DATA, CULTURE, INNOVATON, EMPOWERING WOMEN AND YOUTH) DATA (informed decision making, targets and indicators, M&E) • Need baseline data and indicators from country road map • Need a good management system • Data utilization and analysis, as well as dissemination of results, is an opportunity for growth. • Developing production plans to meet market demand. CULTURE (education, tradition, religion, festivals) • Culture needs to be considered more around these interventions, including culture around education, information-sharing etc. • There are big differences between different ethnic communities and this needs to be recognised, rather than a single approach to all communities. There needs to be more research to understand their food systems and approaches. • Develop technical guidelines for indigenous foods and techniques, creating a record of what is currently preserved through oral traditions and practices. INNOVATION (technology, new knowledge, new ways of working) • Water system needs to be included, not just the food system • New apps create linkages between farmers, suppliers and markets, as well as information on disease, best practices etc. Potential for model farmers to be supplied one smartphone for communities to be able to access this. • An app addressing adaptation to climate change is needed, video based, produced by farmers for farmers and shared on Facebook. • Social media is a hugely useful tool for sharing information and creating market linkages. • Knowledge and information management – a lot of information is available but sometimes specific linkages are hard to make within the food system • Lots of innovation coming out of agricultural schools – but they don’t have access to finance for scaling up. Expand programs that promote funding to nascent ideas. EMPOWERMENT OF WOMEN AND YOUTH (equitable access to resources, knowledge and decision making, and ensuring the youth dividend). • Provide equal access to knowledge and training related to food security and nutrition especially for women and young people. • By intentionally addressing and involving women we see an increase in household income, women’s leadership, create best practices and have great progress with cooperatives. • Address gender inequity in access to knowledge and decision making in farming, whilst respecting cultural norms and minimizing conflict. • Youth don’t want to take over the family farm. This is a challenge. • Youth Nutrition Champions have had great results working on food systems and healthy diets. Youth are highly engaged and interested, and have many great ideas. They enjoy the topic and we should continue with this enthusiasm and continue to engage them, particularly at the decision-making level. Very important to have at sub national level too. • Organizing food system forums with the focus on youth. • Need to build training on traditional foods and cooking into nutrition education • Competitions are useful for encouraging youth to join and promote innovation • Keeping communication to change social and individual behaviors. Developing regular campaigns to raise awareness of the public on food systems via social media.237238241243246249250These relate mostly to the discrepancy between the desire to promote local production by restricting import and the idea that Cambodian producers should have greater access to export markets. These ideas are in conflict with the economics of trade and regional agreements. The ideas can also conflict with consumer interests if the net result is domestic price increases. The objective is to promote local production and provide markets for local producers. Fears of food safety or lack of safety for imported foods are used as justification and are easily inflamed. Evidence is important for making decisions and we need to examine the national interest in terms of international relations and consumer demand.

2021-04-18 11:42:04205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/9381/174

019303614040242304433205202112123312111121214111848255

I follow the guidlines in the manual and the training sessionsThe tracks and other issuesYes

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The dialogue focused on the discussion of the five tracks in addition to some related issues which were discussed thoroully in the dialogue; these are; COVID -19 and its impact in food security, Impact of climate change in food security, resilience building and how to mobilize resources for sustainable development.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Sudan has abundant potentialities to secure its food and can build a concrete and sustainable food system but it needs some sort of technical and financial support. One of the successes is the existence of high level food security and nutrition set up. Need to strengthen the public- private partnership. Already a food security policy exists but the implementation of the action plan need mobilization of resources. Engage youth and women in agriculture to be well equipped by technologies. More opportunities in education for children in rural areas, awareness raising by good consumption practices. One of the main agreed upon points is to transform the country to feed adjacent countries within the period 2022 – 2030 by increasing investments in food system. Investment is highly needed in infrastructures both for agriculture and industries. Governance – Institutional arrangements, Strengthen information system, Peace building Enhance Social responsibility, Planning and mapping and monitoring and evaluation with spatial system (Gis- RS),Data entry and planning, Establishing new laws for natural resources, registration and protections of genetic resource. Sustainable management of Natural Resources. Extension, awareness, genetic bank. Finance of small producer (crops and animal), capacity building. Using modern technologies (save) infrastructure236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The main discussion issues were; Need to reactivate the existing policies and laws and conducting new laws in the area of concern e.g. agricultural and industrial laws, Food security law. Poor capacities and poor innovations in the food system lead to low yield. Traditional means of production, manufacturing, transportation and storage need to be addressed by actionable plans. Lack of standardized practices within the value chain increase the loss and waste and there is need to safe our food. Need for laws to protect both producers and consumers. Poor extension services. Participants discussed also the encouragement of youth and women to intervene by new technologies to enhance the production and manufacturing of agricultural production, direction to export manufactured products to earn hard currencies. Support the social networks to help vulnerable populations. There is an important need to revise food subsidies in line with the current economic, social and health circumstances. The importance of land use laws to have equality according to law. Need to expand the strategic reserves to store all strategic food for sustainable supply. Expand involvement of private sector in production to avail diversity of food products. Strategy to reduce losses and waste all through the value chain. Poor consumption patterns partially due to poor cultural practices. High malnutrition rates due to low diversity in consumption. Impact of climate change and mostly climate variations from season to season. The participants discussed the importance of comparative advantages, mainly in small scale farm. Long discussion on government support to the production discussing high production cost leading to high prices of food product, leading to difficulty in purchasing food for poor HHs. Participants discussed need for income generating activities to improve income and eliminate the inequality. Revisiting irrigation system to be well equipped and need for water harvesting techniques to make use of excessive water in flooding areas.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Impact of climate change in food secuirty Impact of COVID - 19 in food secuirty Mobilization of resources Reseilince building237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The five tracks were presented and there are divergences, agreements and diversified opinion by the participants in the dialogue as follow;. Action Track 1: 'Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all' The participants agreed that there must be policies and legislations to adjust and control the safety measures as safety raised as an important issue to safe people from illnesses and malnutrition cases. There are many actors who should play a vital role to make it a reality as in Sudan there are a lot of challenges in this issue, which have to be addresses by different actors including government, private sector, UN agencies, community organizations, and others. Prices are the main factor for accessing nutritious food. Action Track 2: 'Shift to sustainable consumption patterns' Disagreement in the way that the problem is in cultural practices rather than in consumption gaps. The big volume of loss and waste deepen the gap. Poor cultural practices lead to poor consumption both in quantity and quality. Action Track 3: 'Boost nature-positive production' everyone agreed that it is better to have nature-positive production' but the road is very long and need support by different actors , with this climate changes and other hazards , the production need to be natural , lack of policies and legislations are one of the reasons behind the poor dealing with the agricultural and industrial production, besides poor metrological standards and follow up through the value chain..Big areas in Sudan have potentialities for organic farming , it need resources and know how. Participants agreed that both climate change and COVID – 19a are the main drivers of food insecurity. Action Track 4: 'Advance equitable livelihoods' In Sudan there is a wide range of livelihood systems , the participants disagree in the most dominant ones but at last the consensus put 6 as the dominant which are; agricultural zone, agropastural, pastoral, gum Arabic, flood retreat, rain fed and irrigated. All participants agreed on the importance of promoting a culture of justice and equality among all communities considering gender issue. Some of the participants thought of a sort of discriminations in the remote areas and this need strong justice to be achieved to reach a fair livelihood system.. Action Track 5:'Build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress' Different shocks and vulnerabilities exist, agreement between the participants to address these shocks differently.

2021-04-19 07:11:06205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/8731/149

1921079102600011401011020011000420020400000500

The first national dialogue was held on March 30, 2021, and 19 people, including producers, consumers, experts, and government officials, attended offline. The participants were selected considering their demographics, working sectors and interests. In addition, farmers, officials, and interested citizens participated in the live broadcast on the official YouTube of MAFRA (the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Rural Affairs) (youtube.com/mafrakorea) on the day. Up to 140 people participated through online, and about 1,900 people viewed the recorded video up to today(April 10).

Yes

234238240249The first national dialogue was focused on collecting broad public opinions for setting the direction of long term food policy and setting the direction for following national dialogues. Problems, importance and challenges related all UN Action Tracks were discussed considering the food system situation of Republic of Korea(ROK) and its role as a member of the international community.235238239240241242249As this is the first meeting to prepare for following national dialogues, Dr. David Nabarro, Senior Advisor on the Food Systems Summit, explained the background of the UN Food System Summit through pre-recorded video. MAFRA (the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Rural Affairs) announced plans how to proceed with the National Dialogues. The Special Commission on Agriculture, Fisheries and Rural Policies introduced Korea’s national food plan which is recently established. In addition, KREI (the Korea Rural Economic Research Institute) presented public survey results on food system awareness that was conducted on 234 producers, 1,109 consumers, and 152 experts. Following presentations, a discussion was took place among participants selected considering their demographics, working sectors and interests. As the result of the first national dialogue, it has been verified that the issue of “food security, sustainable food production and consumption, and food for all” is essential to improve Korea's food system. And, a need to keep the balance between the UN Action Track and domestic issues was raised. There was an opinion that it is necessary to identifies the nature of the food issues considering what is the role of the government and that of the market for practical discussion. Furthermore, a need was raised to include various food issues other than issues related to food production, and to include food industries more actively in next national dialogues. Also, it was suggested that various ministries need to participate in future national dialogues.236The first national dialogue was focused on collecting broad public opinions for setting the direction of long term food policy and setting the direction for following national dialogues.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/1st_National_Dialogue_Republic-Of-Korea.pdfhttps://youtu.be/pFqANrGmafY

2021-04-19 20:45:55204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/7369/120

8422461242458292912316193110151211429172255

Los Principios de Actuación de la Cumbre 2021 sobre Sistemas Alimentarios fueron incorporados desde el diseño mismo del Diálogo y se aplicaron y transmitieron de diversas maneras durante la preparación y ejecución del evento: • El Diálogo en sí refleja el compromiso de los convocantes por actuar con urgencia para impulsar una transformación positiva del sistema alimentario de Mérida y contribuir a alcanzar los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible. • Una de las principales motivaciones al organizar este Diálogo es contribuir a los resultados de la Cumbre 2021 sobre Sistemas Alimentarios y transmitir a todos los participantes la visión y objetivos de este importante encuentro. • La selección de los invitados al Diálogo estuvo guiada por el principio de adoptar un enfoque inclusivo, con la participación de múltiples partes interesadas del sistema alimentario de Mérida. • Los Principios de Actuación se incluyeron en el formulario de registro del Diálogo para que todos los invitados los conozcan previamente, buscando que los pongan en práctica durante su participación en el evento. • Los mensajes de los Convocantes y la introducción del Administrador del Diálogo resaltaron aspectos clave de los Principios de Actuación, motivando a los participantes a asumirlos y ponerlos en práctica. • Los principios también se aplicaron en la capacitación de los facilitadores de las mesas de diálogo y en el diseño de los temas y preguntas para motivar el intercambio de experiencias, ideas y propuestas entre los actores del sistema alimentario de Mérida.• El Diálogo fue un llamado a la acción para la ciudadanía de Mérida, transmitiendo el sentido de urgencia por fortalecer nuestro sistema alimentario y contribuir a alcanzar los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible. • A los participantes del Diálogo se les invitó a escuchar con apertura y respeto las experiencias y puntos de otros actores del sistema alimentario de Mérida. • En la selección de los invitados al Diálogo se adoptó un enfoque inclusivo, para lograr una participación amplia y diversa, con representantes de los distintos grupos de interés o partes interesadas del sistema alimentario de Mérida. • En la definición de los temas y preguntas para promover el diálogo se adoptó un enfoque sistémico, reconociendo la complejidad del sistema alimentario de Mérida y explorando las conexiones entre los temas de salud humana, la seguridad alimentaria, medio ambiente y prosperidad económica y social. • En las mesas de diálogo, se hizo especial énfasis en la identificación de las acciones que los propios actores del sistema alimentario de Mérida están impulsando y están teniendo un impacto positivo. De esta manera, se buscó dar visibilidad a las acciones existentes y generar sinergias con nuevas propuestas. • El Diálogo contribuyó a generar nuevas conexiones entre los actores del sistema alimentario de Mérida y a desarrollar la confianza entre gobierno, academia, sociedad civil e iniciativa privada. De esta forma, sentó las bases para promover nuevos modelos de gobernanza, con la participación de todas las partes interesadas, para el diseño y desarrollo de acciones que permitan avanzar hacia un sistema alimentario más saludable, sustentable, resiliente y próspero para toda la ciudadanía en Mérida.Un consejo para los organizadores de los Diálogos de la Cumbre 2021 sobre Sistemas Alimentarios: Producir un video que explique de una manera ágil los Principios de Actuación, para que los Convocantes de los Diálogos puedan compartirlo entre los invitados a los diálogos y a través de sus redes sociales.

NoEn términos generales, se utilizó el mismo método recomendado por el Manual de Referencia para Convocantes. Sin embargo, el evento se realizó en dos días consecutivos. El día 1 inició con la bienvenida a los participantes y con los mensajes por parte de los Convocantes. Posteriormente, el Curador o Administrador del Diálogo dio una introducción y se llevaron a cabo las mesas de diálogo con una duración de 75 minutos. En el día 2 se compartieron los resultados de cada una de las 9 mesas de diálogo, con presentaciones de 5 minutos por parte de cada uno de los Facilitadores. Posteriormente, invitamos a una representante de la ciudad de Quito, Ecuador, a que nos compartiera su experiencia impulsando proyectos y desarrollando estrategias para fortalecer su sistema alimentario local. Esta experiencia internacional resultó de mucho interés para los que participamos en el Diálogo y sirvió para ampliar nuestros horizontes sobre las posibilidades de transformación del sistema alimentario de Mérida. El evento concluyó con mensajes de los Convocantes. Este formato resultó muy dinámico y hubo una participación muy activa los dos días del Diálogo. También ayudó a los facilitadores a preparar mejor sus intervenciones para presentar los resultados de sus mesas de diálogo el día 2.

234238239240241242244246247248249250251Nuestro Diálogo se centró en la exploración de los retos y oportunidades que enfrentamos en la ciudad de Mérida, Yucatán, México, para transitar hacia un sistema alimentario más saludable, sustentable, resiliente y próspero para toda la ciudadanía. Para ello, convocamos a un grupo amplio y diverso de actores del sistema alimentario de Mérida, incluyendo pequeños productores de alimentos, emprendedores y empresarios de toda la cadena agroalimentaria, representantes de organizaciones de la sociedad civil, asociaciones de productores y cámaras empresariales, universidades, centros de investigación, gobierno municipal, estatal y federal, así como de organismos internacionales. Contamos con la participación de 84 personas que fueron divididas en 9 mesas de diálogo. Para abordar de manera integral el tema principal del diálogo, se definieron 3 temas específicos para motivar el intercambio de experiencias, ideas y propuestas: 1. Hacia un sistema alimentario más saludable. 2. Hacia un sistema alimentario seguro y sostenible. 3. Hacia un sistema alimentario más próspero e incluyente. Estos tres temas fueron distintos puntos de partida para explorar los retos y oportunidades del sistema alimentario de Mérida, sabiendo que los temas de salud, seguridad alimentaria, sostenibilidad, prosperidad e inclusión son interdependientes. Cada una de las mesas se enfocó en uno de los tres temas para iniciar el diálogo (3 mesas por tema). Pero como se puede ver en las conclusiones de cada tema, las preguntas fueron diseñadas para explorar las conexiones entre los tres temas y para generar propuestas que fortalezcan el sistema alimentario de Mérida de una manera integral.235238239240241242244246247248249250251El Diálogo fue recibido con mucho interés por parte de los participantes y en cada mesa se generó un intercambio muy entusiasta y propositivo. Resultó muy enriquecedor generar este espacio para escuchar las visiones, opiniones y propuestas de los diversos actores que son parte o inciden en el sistema alimentario de Mérida. Los principales hallazgos son los siguientes: • En Mérida hay un número muy grande de personas y organizaciones que ya están haciendo cosas muy positivas para fortalecer nuestro sistema alimentario. También existen muchas colaboraciones entre la sociedad civil, la iniciativa privada, la academia y el gobierno en temas específicos de salud, sostenibilidad, seguridad alimentaria, comercio justo e inclusión social. • Hace falta una plataforma que una a todas las iniciativas de transformación del sistema alimentario de Mérida. Hacen falta encuentros y mecanismos de colaboración que permitan potenciar los esfuerzos de todos. Los actores que tenemos interés en fortalecer el sistema alimentario de Mérida carecemos de una narrativa que unifique y dé sentido a las muchas iniciativas de transformación que actualmente se desarrollan de manera aislada. • Para seguir fortaleciendo el sistema alimentario de Mérida no existe una solución única. Necesitamos desarrollar un conjunto de acciones de manera simultánea, que vayan atendiendo a distintos retos u oportunidades del sistema alimentario de Mérida. • Si bien hay acciones que se podrán implementar en el corto plazo y otras que requieren más tiempo para su implementación, todas deberán tener un abordaje integral y una visión de largo plazo, con la participación y seguimiento de la ciudadanía. • Es importante involucrar a los distintos actores del sistema alimentario en el diseño y desarrollo de iniciativas de transformación. Esto permitirá diseñar iniciativas integrales, que involucren distintos tipos de conocimiento o puntos de vista, así como generar un respaldo amplio de las distintas partes interesadas para su implementación. • Hay muchas ideas o propuestas que no son nuevas pero que si se logran llevar a la práctica pueden tener un impacto positivo muy grande. Ej: huertos de traspatio o huertos urbanos comunitarios. El reto está en la ejecución de esas ideas, para lograr un involucramiento sostenido y el respaldo amplio de la ciudadanía. • Hace falta desarrollar mecanismos para sistematizar la captación de ideas de transformación del sistema alimentario. Muchas personas han identificado problemáticas que necesitan ser atendidas o han detectado oportunidades de innovación, pero no han tenido el tiempo, los recursos o los aliados para transformar las ideas en acciones. • La pandemia por COVID-19 frenó muchas iniciativas y proyectos relacionados con el sistema alimentario de Mérida, ya sea a nivel de idea o en ejecución. Actores de diversos sectores o grupos de interés del sistema alimentario mencionaron esta situación en sus mesas de diálogo. Esto abre una oportunidad para impulsar nuevamente estas iniciativas y proyectos de transformación, conforme se permita la reapertura de actividades económicas. • La pandemia por COVID-19 también generó nuevas iniciativas e impulsó la adopción de nuevas prácticas. Destaca la respuesta solidaria de toda la ciudadanía y las alianzas que surgieron entre organizaciones de la sociedad civil, empresas, universidades y gobiernos para dar alimento y otros apoyos a la población más vulnerable. También se desarrollaron nuevos vínculos entre productores y consumidores y surgieron proyectos y redes solidarias que se espera que trasciendan la contingencia sanitaria. • El Diálogo fue un punto de partida para captar propuestas para fortalecer el sistema alimentario de Mérida. Pero también hizo evidente la importancia de generar comunidad y la necesidad de identificar, reconocer y aprovechar el conocimiento y las aportaciones de todos los actores del sistema alimentario. Los participantes del Diálogo expresaron su interés de seguir aportando y de llevar a cabo diálogos de manera continua. También, reconocieron la importancia de desarrollar mecanismos o plataformas de colaboración que involucren a los distintos actores del sistema alimentario y a los distintos niveles de gobierno.236238239244246247248249250251Hacia un sistema alimentario más saludable. La educación alimentaria es fundamental para desarrollar nuevos hábitos y prácticas de alimentación más saludable. Es necesario repensar las estrategias educativas: - Pasar de iniciativas centradas en proporcionar orientación alimentaria, con el uso de guías o materiales gráficos, al desarrollo de procesos educativos integrales, vivenciales y lúdicos. - Pasar de estrategias con un enfoque negativo (resolver problemas como el sobrepeso) a estrategias con un enfoque positivo (promover un estilo de vida saludable, fomentar la creatividad en la cocina). - “Cerrar el círculo” de las estrategias educativas, trabajando con los adultos además de los niños, los adolescentes y los maestros. - En el diseño de iniciativas y estrategias educativas, desarrollar iteraciones rápidas con la participación de la ciudadanía, para aprender lo que si funciona y lo que no. Las propuestas que surgieron sobre educación alimentaria son las siguientes: - Establecer una red de promotores comunitarios de salud, que lleven a cabo vigilancia nutricional y desarrollen actividades educativas y recreativas en las colonias y Comisarías de Mérida. - Utilizar redes sociales, nuevas tecnologías y estrategias de marketing para comunicar los beneficios de una buena alimentación, promover un estilo de vida saludable y un consumo consciente. - Desarrollar explicaciones sobre los beneficios nutricionales de los alimentos locales y las distintas formas de prepararlos. Comunicar mejor las ventajas de los alimentos producidos con prácticas sostenibles. - Llevar a cabo visitas guiadas para conocer a los productores de la región y sus prácticas de producción de alimentos. - Llevar a cabo visitas guiadas para conocer el trabajo de organizaciones dedicadas a promover la reducción de pérdidas y desperdicios de alimentos. Propuestas para fomentar el acceso de toda la población a alimentos frescos y saludables cerca de casa: - Impulsar el establecimiento de huertos en la ciudad. - Fomentar redes colaborativas y solidarias entre vecinos. - Impulsar una red de mercados para abastecer a los “desiertos alimentarios” de la ciudad. - Establecer comedores comunitarios con asesoría nutricional para los trabajadores que tienen que desplazarse largas distancias. - Explorar estrategias novedosas para promover el acceso a alimentos frescos y saludables: intercambio de desechos de plástico por alimentos. Otras propuestas y conclusiones son las siguientes: - Realizar un diagnóstico del sistema alimentario de Mérida, con información relevante y actualizada que nos permita entender mejor la situación actual. - Impulsar proyectos de innovación para todas las etapas de la cadena agroalimentaria. Vincular a los jóvenes, las universidades y centros de investigación con todos los actores del sistema alimentario de Mérida en el desarrollo de innovaciones. - Impulsar y fortalecer iniciativas para transformar alimentos que no son susceptibles de venta al consumidor final. - Impulsar un programa de menús saludables en restaurantes y establecimientos de preparación de comida, proporcionando información a los comensales sobre el tamaño de las porciones, los ingredientes utilizados y el contenido calórico/nutricional de los platillos que ofrecen. - Fortalecer la legislación local para reducir las pérdidas y desperdicios de alimentos. - Capacitar a los productores locales para que adopten prácticas de producción sostenibles. - Impulsar iniciativas y proyectos para prevenir la contaminación de los mantos acuíferos y promover el manejo adecuado del agua.236238239240241244246247248249250251Hacia un sistema alimentario seguro y sostenible. Necesitamos generar comunidad, identificar y reconocer la aportación de todos los actores del sistema alimentario. También, encontrar formas de vincular a los distintos actores para desarrollar soluciones a partir de nuestros conocimientos y experiencia. La educación es fundamental para concientizar a la sociedad sobre las implicaciones económicas, sociales y ambientales de nuestras decisiones alimentarias y para promover un cambio cultural hacia un consumo más responsable y sostenible. Considerar los siguientes aspectos: - Visibilizar y revalorizar a los actores del sistema alimentario. - Enseñar por qué es importante cuidar nuestra alimentación y sobre los alimentos que consumimos. - Crear conciencia sobre los beneficios de consumir productos locales. Informar sobre sus características, historia, usos y forma de prepararlos. Fomentar la producción de alimentos en el municipio y sus alrededores: - Enseñar a la población a producir sus propios alimentos, recuperando los saberes ancestrales relacionados con los huertos de traspatio. - Fomentar el establecimiento de huertos y ofrecer capacitaciones a la población. - Distribuir semillas y darle seguimiento a los pequeños productores y personas más vulnerables. - Incentivar la producción agroecológica para disminuir el uso de pesticidas y agroquímicos. - Dar capacitación continua a los productores. Desarrollar y fortalecer las estrategias para acortar las cadenas de valor y establecer canales de comercialización directos entre productores y consumidores. - Fortalecer y expandir el programa Círculo 47 para integrar a más productores y llegar a más ciudadanos de Mérida, sobre todo a poblaciones vulnerables. - Potenciar el trabajo de diversas organizaciones que promueven el comercio justo y la comercialización directa entre productor y consumidor. - Promover el establecimiento de mercados ambulantes con productos de calidad y accesibles. - Promover redes de acopio y puntos de venta, así como ferias, para darle más visibilidad a los productores de alimentos y promover el comercio justo. - Establecer una o varias centrales de abasto “secundarias” en distintas partes de la ciudad. - Capacitar en el uso de nuevas tecnologías para aprovechar las oportunidades que ofrece el comercio electrónico. - Fomentar el establecimiento de redes comunitarias para el intercambio de alimentos. Propuestas sobre seguridad alimentaria: - Asegurar la calidad y cantidad del alimento a poblaciones vulnerables. Las canastas básicas que se ofrecen en los programas sociales no necesariamente tienen productos saludables de calidad. Propuestas para reducir las pérdidas y desperdicios de alimentos: - Productores: capacitar sobre el manejo postcosecha y promover la adopción de técnicas y tecnologías de conservación de alimentos. - En restaurantes: Facilitar las donaciones de alimentos. Poner centros de acopio para distribuir excedentes. Promover iniciativas para hacer composta. - Fortalecer el trabajo de los bancos de alimentos, comedores comunitarios y redes solidarias de ciudadanos. - Consumidores finales: Cambiar percepciones sobre los alimentos: las frutas y verduras no necesitan tener una apariencia “perfecta.” Enseñar a aprovechar mejor los alimentos: consumir los rabos, las hojas, la cáscara, etc. Incentivar la composta de desechos orgánicos. Propuestas sobre sustentabilidad: - Incentivar la venta de productos a granel. - Promover el uso de empaques alternativos y biodegradables.236238239240241242244246247248249250251Hacia un sistema alimentario más próspero e incluyente. Los pequeños productores de alimentos dentro del municipio enfrentan diversas situaciones que limitan su desarrollo y desalientan la producción: - Están aislados y los costos de traslado individuales son muy altos. - Es muy difícil entrar a mercados existentes y los intermediarios acaparan las ganancias. - Son muy vulnerables a las fluctuaciones de precios. - Tienen una baja diversificación en su producción. - Tienen acceso limitado al agua. Durante la pandemia surgieron diversas iniciativas para acercar a productores y consumidores, promoviendo el comercio justo. Para fortalecer este movimiento se propone: - Apoyar a los productores que ya están comercializando sus productos de manera directa para optimizar sus procesos y reducir costos. - Capacitar a los productores sobre el uso de redes sociales y tecnologías para el comercio electrónico. - Orientar sobre el establecimiento de asociaciones o cooperativas de productores para comercializar sus productos. - Impulsar el programa Círculo 47 y fortalecerlo para que pueda llegar a más personas, tanto a más productores como consumidores, con especial énfasis en poblaciones vulnerables. - Para diversificar la producción, también es importante orientar a los productores sobre lo que está demandando la población. - Establecer más puntos de venta de productos locales en la ciudad y flexibilizar los existentes. Es necesario crear las condiciones adecuadas para el comercio justo por el lado de la demanda: - Incentivar la demanda de productos locales con empresas, restaurantes e instituciones de gobierno. - Difundir los beneficios sociales, económicos y ambientales de consumir productos locales, saludables y de temporada: Información en los puntos de venta sobre el contenido nutricional de los productos y formas de prepararlos. Informar sobre el origen de los productos. Diferenciar a los productos producidos sin agroquímicos. Crear un directorio de productores locales. Promover una marca o etiqueta para productos yucatecos. Aprovechar la presencia que tienen los restaurantes locales en las redes sociales para promover los productos locales y de temporada e incluir estos productos en sus menús. Aplicar estrategias de marketing para cambiar percepciones y hacer deseables a los productos locales. Desarrollar estrategias educativas para los distintos sectores de la población para transmitir los beneficios de los alimentos locales y promover su consumo. Entre estas estrategias, se propuso impulsar una carrera de nutrición comunitaria. - Incentivar el establecimiento de huertos urbanos para que la población de Mérida tenga acceso a productos locales y de temporada y conozca sobre ellos. - Promover el agroturismo para que tanto locales como visitantes conozcan y valoren los productos y la cultura local, así como el papel que juegan los productores de alimentos en el sistema alimentario. - Establecer parcelas demostrativas dónde el público pueda conectar con la naturaleza y conocer a los productores de alimentos. - Además de generar crecimiento económico, el turismo puede promover el comercio justo fomentar la transmisión de buenas prácticas y posicionar a la ciudad. - Una de las actividades con mayor potencial para el agroturismo es la meliponicultura: una actividad de gran valor cultural dónde las mujeres juegan un papel primordial. Impulsar la “gastronomía creativa" entre la población, para preparar y transformar alimentos locales en platillos saludables, novedosos, prácticos y reduciendo las pérdidas y desperdicios de alimentos.237238241251Un área de divergencia que se identificó durante el diálogo es sobre la situación de las mujeres en el sistema alimentario de Mérida. Se reconoció que el papel de la mujer ha cambiado mucho en los últimos años. Antes no se le daba su lugar a la mujer en la agricultura. Hoy en día las mujeres están destacando en distintos roles, tanto en el campo como en la comercialización y transformación de alimentos. Pero se detectó que la situación de las mujeres, y la percepción sobre ellas, varía mucho de acuerdo con la posición que tienen en el sistema alimentario. Para algunos, las mujeres no enfrentan ninguna desventaja con respecto a los hombres. En particular, hay varios ejemplos de mujeres productoras que han sido muy exitosas en la comercialización de sus productos a través del programa Círculo 47 del Ayuntamiento de Mérida. Otros participantes opinaron que muchas mujeres todavía enfrentan situaciones que limitan su desarrollo e impacto (baja escolaridad, no poseen tierra para cultivar y operan en la informalidad, etc.). A pesar de ello, los participantes coincidieron en que las mujeres juegan un papel muy importante en el sistema alimentario de Mérida y en el desarrollo de hábitos de consumo saludables, por lo que hay que reconocer y potenciar su trabajo. Para ello, es necesario analizar el papel que juega la mujer en todas las etapas de las cadenas de valor agroalimentarias, para entender su situación particular y los obstáculos que enfrentan.

2021-04-20 01:15:04204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/12180/40

64045010150050400100100503610001001000000100100

The Dialogue , gave priority to rural women who are at the center of the food system value chain from farm to fork .The inclusivity was a key component to ensuring everyone`s voice was heard and in addition, we integrated internally displaced persons from both English speaking regions ( North West and South West regions). In addition , we equally had in attendance a Member of parliament from the North West Region who contributed enormously by encouraging the women to keep up with the entrepreneurial spirit. In addition, the specificity of this Dialogue was that , French , English and local language ( Lamsoh ) was being used to ensure No One was Left Behind.Thus ,Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivityEmbrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity and Commit to the Summit because the rural women recommitted themselves as well as the Member of Parliament to keep engaging in the Dialogues within their constituency.Yes, we need to multiple translations of the Summit documents into local languages as well as Braille. Fortunately, the CSAYN Global Secretariat is translating the Handbook once available , it shall address most of the issues.

Yes

2342382392402412422442452462472482492502511. All Rural Women committed to the summit by registering as Food Systems Summit Heroes (FSSH). 2. Established a CSAYN Global - Rural Women Forum hosted by Tabwan Support Network (TSN). 3.Mapped out Rural Women committed to translate the Global Goals and Summit documents into local languages . 4.Rural women committed themselves to scale up the Dialogue in their various communities . 5. Tabwan Support Network nominated a Liaison Officer for Rural Women to engage with the CSAYN Global Secretariat.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251There was a Call to Action which stipulated the following components : 1. Need for a more structured capacity building and strengthening of the IDP from both English speaking regions in tailoring, food processing, agribusiness and establishing farmer field schools (FFS) in the various regions for youth. 2. More finance scheme should allocated to boost their production, transformation and buy storage facilities . 3. Participants unanimously agreed to commit to the 5 ATs to better contribute to the Summit Process.236There was a Call to Action which stipulated the following components : 1. Need for a more structured capacity building and strengthening of the IDP from both English speaking regions in tailoring, food processing, agribusiness and establishing farmer field schools (FFS) in the various regions for youth. 2. More finance scheme should allocated to boost their production, transformation and buy storage facilities . 3. Participants unanimously agreed to commit to the 5 ATs to better contribute to the Summit Process.237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Participants were more concerned with the fact that instead of traveling from one region to the other , they would rather prefer to ensure the Food Systems Summit Dialogues (FSSD) is administered within their communities of residence if possible.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/FSSD-RURALWOMEN-GROUP-PIC1.jpgCompressed-scaled.jpghttps://twitter.com/manueloteroIICA/status/1383815610543468545?s=08

2021-04-20 08:04:20204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/7508/203

126823542810319505712256412005601178501101222141053110817170

The event was organized with a specific focus on multi-stakeholder participation. Panels and group discussions were properly designed to enable women, food entrepreneurs and investors, to voice their views and experiences in person, and facilitating exchange on concrete propositions and solutions.

Yes

234238241242245251This Independent Dialogue focused on catalysing finance for women food entrepreneurs at different scales, including micro and SME level. It was hosted by IFAD, curated by the SAFIN Secretariat, and co-convened with AGRA, Agripreneurship Alliance, GAA-EL, IAFN, Nourishing Africa, One Young World, and the Gender Lever of the UNFSS. The approach taken in this dialogue was to review the game changer proposals from the “first wave” that are relevant to the theme at hand, and assess them – considering strengths and weaknesses and proposing ways to enrich them or new solutions – particularly from the perspectives of women entrepreneurs. The event was structured around a public segment, with keynote interventions and a moderated panel of women entrepreneurs and investors, and a closed segment with facilitated dialogue groups. Facilitators for each session were selected due to their strong expertise in the sector and were briefed before-hand on process and the need to focus on concrete, actionable solutions (i.e vs. discussing problems).235238241242245251In general, there was a sense that the game-changer proposals already on the table after the first wave are getting to a lot of the issues that women entrepreneurs face in accessing finance, but at the same time are lacking in a number of areas, including making specific provisions for innovative ways to design and deliver financial products for women entrepreneurs (e.g. to include options such as collateral-free lending and in-kind repayment) and addressing the specific needs of women who manage “nano businesses” with one or more dedicated de-risking and financing facilities. The need to consider context specificity and to design context-responsive solutions was emphasized throughout the event, suggesting that any solutions that are high-level and global in scope may be difficult to make locally significant and/or will require a lot of work to be implemented in ways that respond to different local needs and opportunities.236238241242245251Discussion topic 1: Building women’s entrepreneurship and capacity for innovation: what are the game-changing models in education, business development services, mentorship and peer support? The discussion around this topic considered proposals made in the first wave concerning localized support to women who process/market underutilized nutritious crops, a global innovation hub for small entrepreneurs, and a commitment by at least 50 countries to gender-transformative programmes in food systems. These were viewed positively,but participants recommended: - Being more explicit about the need/intention to make each proposal context-specific in design, at implementation and in tracking results and impact. This point was made with particular emphasis concerning the idea of a global agri-SME platform - Being more explicit about the need for women’s empowerment across different areas, given that obstacles to entrepreneurship can stem from different factors of inequality and different constraints not directly related to women’s business activities - Being more explicit about how each proposal can/will facilitate women’s access to markets - Avoiding an overly generic focus and prioritizing value chains where women are most directly involved or likely to become involved as entrepreneurs - For proposals that have financing components, ensuring close integration between access to finance, training and/or mentoring, and adequate focus on the provision of seed capital - For those components, consider also encouraging financial institutions to pay successful women entrepreneurs to support in assessing women’s loan requests and in mentoring - Integrating support to the formation of women entrepreneurs’ groups into the “match-making” function of the proposed SME platform. Participants recommended assessing the success of the proposals made in terms of: - Increased number of women engaged at leadership levels within the sector, and confidence of women to taking leadership positions in SMEs. - Increased agency of women within the agriculture and agribusiness sector - Increased visibility of women in agriculture as “bankable” and investible - More capacity building and training delivered to women in food and agriculture - Increased presence of women in formal market chains and in the more lucrative, decision-making aspects of the value chain Participants also made an additional proposal for a global programme to set up local technical assistance hubs for women farmers and entrepreneurs, with particular focus on strengthening their business skills. The important role that farmers’ organizations and local SMEs can play in delivering or channelling business development support, facilitating peer learning and mentoring for women entrepreneurs was emphasized.Similarly, participants stressed the need to strengthen the digital infrastructure for information sharing among both women entrepreneurs (or aspiring entrepreneurs) and financial institutions.236238241242245251Discussion topic 2: Investing in food systems with a gender transformative lens: how to build capacity and commitment at scale across the financial sector? The main focus of this discussion across breakout groups was the proposal of a de-risking facility for agri-SME finance providers made under AT1 during the first wave. Participants reflected on the proposal and validated in particular the idea of establishing a sizeable pool of highly patient capital, while recommending considering non-grant options. They further recommended giving adequate attention to strengthening the capacity of recipient financial intermediaries (funds, banks, non-bank financial institutions) to invest in start-ups and in women-led businesses. For the technical assistance component of the facility (which also targets financial intermediaries and investors), participants recommended including training modules that intermediaries can then use to facilitate capacity building for women entrepreneurs, including in some areas – like financial literacy – where some types of financial intermediaries may be well placed to contribute. They further recommended engaging farmers’ organizations and institutions working on gender and financial inclusion among the local providers of technical assistance to be facilitated through the TA component of the facility. For the facility to ultimately help achieve positive impact on women entrepreneurs, the metrics it is expected to use and to encourage recipient financial intermediaries to adopt should include gender-focused metrics. Examples to be considered include a “gender equity/quality scorecard” mentioned during the panel discussion by Agnes Dasewicz of SEAF, focusing both on performance by financial intermediaries and on performance by their investees or clients. For gender-transformative implementation, the facility should also model full participation of women in leadership and in decision-making at different levels- both in the facility itself and in the recipient financial intermediaries - given evidence that women are more likely to finance women, and also support efforts in collateral-free product design and delivery. Far from least importance, effective implementation will also require identifying enabling or hindering policy factors in the countries where the facility will operate and seeking to engage with governments in participating countries on a gender-transformative agenda in agri-SME finance, not only at the level of policy design but also at the level of policy implementation and enforcement. Also under this discussion heading, participants recommended identifying synergies among the different game changer proposals and ensuring the presence of some key elements in all proposals of a financial nature – such as the recognition of the need for concessional capital to de-risk/complement/increase financial flows towards women food entrepreneurs.236238241242245251Discussion topic 3: 3. Strengthening information systems to empower women entrepreneurs to navigate the financial sector: how to bring a gender lens to existing and new information platforms? Under this heading, participants found particular transformative potential in first wave solution proposals 4.12 (Global Matching Investment Fund for Small Scale Producers’ organisations), 4.13 (Invest in the future – Making Food Systems Finance accessible for Rural People) and 4.16 (Agri-SME Business Development Platform). Their recommendations to make these proposals mode likely to be effective at implementation stage included: • Close(r) interaction between financial institutions and women clients • Training and capacity building in financial and investment literacy for women • Ensuring that women know what data to collect and how to present it to financial institutions, and that financial institutions have a good understanding of women’s constraints and possibilities in relation to data collection and tracking. In general, success for all these proposals appears to participants to hinge upon close coordination and new partnerships among governments, investors, financial institutions, development partners, women’s entrepreneur groups and farmers’ organizations. Another key success factor for all the proposals is progress in addressing the digital gap in rural areas and for women – including digital literacy. Finally, participants emphasized the need to design each of the solutions with a clear financial sustainability model and plan from the very outset. One of the groups discussed in particular detail a proposal for a global (or multiple local) business development hubs for women entrepreneurs, building on the opening panel, as this was seen as innovative and potentially transformative. The hub would be designed to bridge the current information gaps between financiers and women entrepreneurs.For such a hub to improve women’s capacities while also encouraging more financial institutions to invest in women, participants suggested that it should be: -a hub of information and knowledge resources that helps financiers understand women’s entrepreneurship and the business of agriculture - accessible across different countries and in different languages - digitaland accompanied by efforts to bridge the digital divide (also on a gender basis) and to improve women’s digital and financial literacy - especially amongnano and micro businesses -gender inclusive rather than women-only in focus - providing women with information about existing initiatives that can support them to grow as entrepreneurs -able to provide or link women to training programmes - able to facilitate aggregation among women’s entrepreneurs (supporting the formation of clusters and/or, depending on context and type of business, cooperatives). Participants also considered how such a hub may help nurture, aggregate, and/or render visible to investors potential “pipeline” of women-led enterprises.Should such a hub be developed with a regional focus on Africa, participants reckoned that a number of organizations currently working on closely related initiatives may support it. This could include AGRA, Nourishing Africa, the Value4HER platform and other platforms currently emerging.236238241242245251Discussion topic 4: 4. Designing financial products and services for women food entrepreneurs: where are the critical gaps and highest potential impact areas of innovation? One group addressing this theme discussed existing game changer proposals under the headings of a Catalytic SME financing facility; Global matching investment fund; and Making food system finance available for rural communities. To improve on these proposals, participants recommended to: - Leverage existing studies on financing women to influence mind-set change among lenders, noting that studies demonstrate profitability and low risk in lending to women, but only 10% of financial institutions use gender disaggregated data to inform tailored products. - Increase gender lens lending appetite through incentives to funds and institutions that prioritize impact financing, green finance and finance to enterprises that contribute to the SDGs. This will also influence entrepreneur prioritization of sustainable food productionsystems and nutrition. - Frame the narrative to financial institutions as gender lens finance rather than focus it narrowly on agriculture, as gender lens finance is proven to be less risky across sectors. - Continue to emphasize the importance of women’s groups and portfolio aggregation in finance. - Focus technical assistance around nutritious and high development impact products and combine support to women entrepreneurs with actions to develop markets and finance for these products. - Keep in mind that women entrepreneurs need a full suite of financial products not just credit. - Leverage technology and big data to reduce information asymmetry and perceived risk. - Expand the collateral base to include technology-based collateral, group guarantees etc. Participants also made specific suggestions for measuring success around these proposals, including: 1. % of the credit gap to women reduced 2. % increase of financial institutions lending to women 3. Number of new women tailored financial products on the market 4. % change in cost of credit To realize the proposals, participants emphasized the need for an ecosystem approach incorporating the financial institutions and other investors, governments, enablers and other stakeholders. With more specific focus to each of the existing proposals, participants considered the following. - The proposed de-risking facility is more likely to be relevant to women entrepreneurs if it supports financial institutions both to design more products with women in mind and to communicate about them in ways that are clearly intelligible for women without formal finance or business training. The TA component of the facility should help inform financial intermediaries about the range of options they can consider to reach more women entrepreneurs (including highly innovative models such as loans with in-product repayment, as adopted by some institutions in Canada). - The proposed global matching fund for investments by agri-SMEs can be more relevant to or focused on women entrepreneurs’ needs if it provides not only for grants or soft loans but also for in-kind finance (especially via equipment) and technically assistance around its use. - The proposed rolling out of digital solutions among rural financial intermediaries and FSPs can be made more relevant to women by also including revolving funds and local savings and credit associations among the types of institutions that can benefit from automation and/or use of digital data and systems.237238241242245251Since discussions focused on solutions, no clear areas of divergence emerged.

2021-04-20 19:51:36204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/9149/194

560

This dialogue followed the Chatham House Rule, which states that participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speakers, nor that of any other participant, may be revealed. Plenary and breakout sessions will be recorded for in-house use only. In addition, participants were provided and were asked to follow the principles of engagement for the Food Systems Summit: 1. Act with urgency 2. Commit to the summit 3. Be respectful 4. Recognize complexity 5. Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity 6. Complement the work of others 7. Build trustOur dialogue attracted a diverse cross section of U.S. farmers, value chain partners, researchers and conservation partners. Participants explored and shared ideas around the sustainable practices taking place on their farms/ranches and in their commodity sectors and discussed ways of further incorporating sustainable practices to reduce environmental impact and achieve outcomes that improve lives. Breakout group leaders posed the following questions to stimulate discussion: 1. What innovative practices are producers currently using to sustainably intensify production, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and deliver solutions to other Sustainable Development Goals? 2. What current incentives are most successful for scaling adoption of sustainable practices and what new incentives may be necessary? What action needs to occur to create those incentives? 3. What role does technology and innovation play in promoting sustainability on your farm? 4. What are some of the regulatory or research constraints or obstacles that need to be addressed to move this forward? 5. What information do you need to understand sustainable goals and how they apply to your farm?Be sure to extend invitations to participate to all types and sizes of farmers and ranchers, as all types of systems, practices and innovative approaches will be required to achieve food security and other sustainable development goals. in addition to appreciating and respecting the Principles of Engagement, we also found that the following guiding principles were helpful in forging consensus: - Context-specific priorities and solutions - Profitability as a central component - Uncommon collaboration - Farmers, ranchers and foresters at the center of discussions and decisions - Systems approaches that are scalable - Science in conjunction with farmers’ experiential knowledge and indigenous innovation

Yes

234240243244245246247248249250251This Dialogue reflects a range of perspectives among many different types of agriculture and demonstrates that farmers understand the environmental, climate, social, economic, and health impacts of highly complex food systems. The ideas and approaches identified by the Dialogue participants are, at their core, guiding principles for shaping the transformation of food systems. Participants hope to offer a framework and make the case for ensuring that farmers have a prominent place at the table with other key stakeholders as recommendations are developed and implemented. These suggestions come from North America, but are practiced in very different regions, climates, and geologies across the continent. The principles included here can be applied in many different parts of the world to enhance food security, improve nutrition and public health, enrich the soils, manage the waters, judiciously use nutrients, and adapt to climate changes – as well as build stronger multi-stakeholder partnerships along the value chain. The Dialogue also shows how farmers, ranchers and other food producers have, for decades, practiced nature-positive agriculture and steadily expanded those efforts – for both environmental and efficiency reasons. They seek a balance in how agriculture as a whole becomes more sustainable, productive, and profitable, and envision a more collaborative approach to regulation and progress. That vision also includes a full toolbox that gives farmers a range of options to creatively meet and exceed broad goals. The farmers in this Dialogue have posed questions such as: Where do we go next with innovation? How do we balance the way agriculture evolves (through innovation, research and market demand) with the need to regulate and guide it away from practices that threaten the environment? Farmers in this dialogue envisioned a new approach with regulations focused more on outcomes (healthier soil, efficient water use) rather than specific practices (reducing/measuring inputs). They recommended flexibility, instead of rigid top-down planning, to encourage new practices to evolve through trial and error. Leading farmers have been on the regenerative bandwagon for decades, using no-till methods and cover crops; finding ways to reuse “waste” with biodigesters and gas lines for energy from manure; using hulls from one crop to mulch another; and more-effective irrigation, among other practices. With those decades of knowledge, what they seek going forward is: • A place at the table for policymaking. • A diverse toolbox and the opportunity to freely experiment with those tools. • Localized food chains (along with broader ones) to ensure resilience.235240243244245246247248249250251Common themes. Here is a summary of the major ideas and recommendations that recurred in most of the five topic breakout sessions in this Dialogue. General • There is a disconnect between producers and consumers in evaluating the cost of food and value of food. In much of North America, there is a marketing focus on low price rather than high nutrition. Farmers would like to see “food security” discussed in terms of “nutrition security.” • The sustainability, efficiency and adaptability of practices will vary across geographies and farming conditions. Value Chain • Recommendations for nature-positive agriculture need to go beyond farmers. Many crop farmers rent much of the land they farm and must have long-term leases in order to not only implement more-sustainable practices, but to get the benefit of those practices and justify their investment in someone else’s property. Likewise, contract growers in poultry and pork already are heavily invested in basic structures and equipment required by aggregators, restricting ability to spend on new management technology. • For permanent crops, decisions made today can be in place for 25 years – so changing practices cannot necessarily occur from one crop year to the next. • Cooperatives and collaboration up and down the value chain are important to farmers’ ability to meet new goals. Whether through cost-sharing for composting facilities or anaerobic digesters, or pipelines for renewable natural gas, Sustainable Development Goals need to be on the agendas of all players in the value chain, and cognizant of the fact that one-size does not fit all. Regulation • Farm and regulator collaboration is a non-adversarial way to not only achieve environmental targets, but to make new strategies even more effective. Farmers and regulators need to talk and, more importantly, listen to and understand each other. Neither has the entire answer – they need to combine their knowledge and jointly develop solutions. Regulations need to be revised to address systems rather than specific targets on specific practices – which sometimes come in conflict with each other through different regulatory agencies. • Entities that finance agriculture also need to be part of the process of meeting food security and other SDGs. Otherwise, their terms or leases can come in conflict the way farms seek to operate more sustainably. Knowledge • Agricultural research needs to become more holistic – as well as better-funded – in terms of both applied and much-needed basic research. Farmers need integrated research that studies a new method’s benefits to multiple outcomes: nutrition content soil quality, water quality, air quality, renewable-energy generation. • Research investment must go beyond commodity crops. Changing tastes and great variety will require specialized research to assist growers of specialty crops. • Animal agriculture should be viewed as a part of a broad, diversified system – and as a solution rather than a problem. Its benefits in high-quality protein and in providing nutrients to and management of the land are essential parts of the circle of life. • Knowledge sharing is essential – through Extension and research; field days; collaboration throughout agriculture and among different siloes; cooperatives, up and down the value chain. Technical • Technology and data, as in precision agriculture, are driving more and more of agriculture. Implement manufacturers are now data and technology companies. Technology needs to be scaled appropriately and made available and affordable to farms of all sizes, with continual outreach to keep farmers abreast of technology changes. Broadband access will become ever more important in nature-positive production, enabling global adoption of precision agriculture in harmony with nature. What is needed: 1. Diversified and sustainable intensification of production strategies appropriate to different geographies, cultures and a wide variety of farm types and scales to produce high quality protein, grains, and fruits and vegetables and reconnect production processes that reintegrate livestock, aquaculture, and crop agriculture as systems to better recycle nutrients. 2. Private activities and public policies that incentivize markets and food system distribution infrastructure – ensuring food access to low-income households and vulnerable, benefit all scales of production. and provide profitable agricultural livelihoods. 3. Evidence-based and people-centered approaches that reflect the concerns of producers and multiple stakeholder groups to implement solutions and partnerships at landscape scale. 4. Systems-based agricultural research that is energized and integrated with SDG goals. Integrated research agendas should advance a systems approach to ensure health236240243244245246247248249250251Discussion topic #1: Nature-positive strategies from producers of grains, feed, and oilseeds. ADOPTING NEW PRACTICES. Most participants in this in this breakout session have used some combination of cover crops, no-till, strip-till, inter-seeding, and other practices for decades. But many say their neighbors thought they were crazy when they first adopted these practices. Such conservation practices are slowly becoming widespread, but improvement would come much more quickly with greater incentives – longer leases for rented land, longer partnerships for federal cost-share programs, compensation for early adopters of nature-forward practices, developing markets for carbon sequestration – which is a long-term process that needs ongoing credits. Providers of crop insurance also need to understand the benefits of nature-positive practices. EDUCATION AND KNOWLEDGE-SHARING. Lenders, insurers, cost-share programs, regulators, and farmers need to be on the same page and work together on the long-term benefits of nature-positive practices. And they need to reach out to farmers who have been slow to adopt change. But agronomy and soil testing are part of that education – along with the technology of precision farming and understanding the varying needs across the land, even if different parts of the same field. Technology and data will drive many advances – especially when combined with farmers’ common sense and knowledge of their land.236240243244245246247248249250251Discussion topic #2: Nature-positive strategies relating to grain production. TECHNOLOGY is critical to the drive for nature-positive agriculture, but it must be adaptable to farms of all types and scales. Plant breeding innovations must continue their progress in reducing soil loss, water use, and herbicide use. Differences in soil, terrain, land-use and other factors can vary considerably even within the same area, meaning there is no one-size-fits-all strategy. Programs and policies must be flexible enough to allow creativity and experimentation to achieve desired results at the hyper-local level. Knowledge-sharing based on these types of solutions can be the most effective way to promote widespread change. This applies to farmer-to-farmer education as well as formalized classes through Extension or associations. It also can be valuable to learn from farmers in different geographic and commodity backgrounds. A grain farmer might learn something useful from an almond farmer. CONTINUAL IMPROVEMENT – Farmers are making sustainable contributions because of environmental and climate imperatives, but also to achieve greater efficiency and effectiveness. Often this is best achieved through trial-and-error. Economics and the market help drive innovation, as farmers respond to business economics to cut costs. Farmers need to be at the table as academics and policymakers interpret new data and map out new agricultural strategies. Genetics, equipment, GPS, and precision agriculture are all factors in producing and reviewing the data. INCREASING PRODUCTIVITY – More output for each input – whether it’s investment, crop protection, genetics, time – means increased efficiency of production and has a huge positive impact on the environment. It also means collaborating with other groups in the supply chain, because each link affects, or is affected by, the others. The group also raised the question of what measurement components are necessary for farmers to build and focus on. Targets that are based on differences across a county, across a continent, or around the globe.; a focus not on reduction of specific inputs, for example, but targets related to soil health, water conservation, nutrient management, and other factors related to the “circle of life” on the farm and its surrounding areas.236240243244245246247248249250251Discussion topic #3: Nature-positive strategies from producers of dairy and poultry, etc. COLLABORATIVE REGULATION. The strategy for nature-positive production should focus on innovation by farmers, as opposed to a prescriptive plan by others. Regulations are essential, but the practices and tactics are best devised at local levels by farmers who already are seeking and crafting solutions that fit their geography and climate. Different farms have different types of innovation, depending on the contexts. It could be running the farmhouse stove from a methane digester fed by only eight cows, or it could be an international conglomerate bearing the expense of methane pipelines from hog lagoons to a gas plant. Small farms can adapt some of the efficiencies from integrated operations with economies of scale. Yet there need to be goals and guardrails – a regulatory roadmap – to keep farmers and regulators on the same page, learning from each other, and working together. One farmer spoke of meetings between regulators and farmers at which each learned of the other’s challenges and reasoning, and found mutually beneficial ways to clean a bay. Sometimes, regulations from different agencies may seem to be in conflict. Such cases are ideal for different parties to collaborate and clear the air – literally and figuratively. OTHER COLLABORATION. Rented land and the need for longer leases are barriers to new practices and technologies. Hog or poultry aggregators have specific standards for buildings, equipment, and processes – which makes it costly or against rules for growers to innovate. In these cases, and in others, participants said players all along the value chain need to be part of efforts to adopt nature-positive practices. This can help smaller and independent farms to adopt efficiencies from integrated operations. A lot of waste-to-energy possibilities also may require collaboration. Perhaps cover crops that could be used along with animal waste to feed digesters; natural-gas companies could share the cost of pipelines from manure lagoons. Carbon sequestration and bio-char from forest waste are other possibilities. Strategies and technologies must be created in a way that allows them to be scaled down to meet the needs of smaller farmers. Participants noted a profound lack of understanding on the part of some investors and regulators about the challenges of operating a farm. One example cited was of an investor wanting a 100-year lease on land to fund some research. Some of the regulations on investment from large-scale credit needs to be revised. These illustrate the importance of farmers having a place at the table for discussions of the politics and finance of agriculture.236240243244245246247248249250251Discussion topic #4: Nature-positive strategies from producers of beef and pork, etc. Beef cattle, pork, and row-crop farmers provided multiple examples of innovation on their farms. On swine operations, for example, composting is a significant investment but has huge impacts on the operation and there are cost share programs available. A challenge is making sure other producers are aware of those incentives and programs. In terms of the Food Systems Summit and nature-positive practices, farmers and others in the group want a clearer understanding of what the goal of the United Nations is. Producers share the view that all forms of agriculture need continual improvement. But they worry about recommendations that might seek to do away with one type of agriculture or some common practices: “What is the true end goal, and what are they or we trying to achieve and why? Is it a full transformation or is it continual improvement? As producers, we need more context and want to be involved in the process of developing solutions.” Rather than being told what not to do, farmers want the research, support, and incentives to help them with continual improvement and new options. To build on that point, the group talked about what a full transformation of our food system could look like. Communication around sustainability is important because each person or region's definition might vary slightly, and practices look different across the globe. Our producers emphasized the importance of avoiding the one-size-fits-all approach. The food system is fragile, so transformation must be approached cautiously and include the voice of farmers. Beef producers, for example, have taken great strides in grazing management and taking advantage of new ways to utilize government cost programs. The swine industry has focused on implementing sustainability measures to mitigate methane and greenhouse gases. The pork industry over the last decade has been working on decreasing its environmental footprint – and has built partnerships up and down the value chain, making it easier to take on sustainability initiatives. Cost-share programs, both privately and publicly funded, are very important to these types of ventures.236240243244245246247248249250251Discussion topic #5: Nature-positive strategies from producers of specialty crops. As in grains and livestock, specialty-crop farmers have for years been adopting nature-positive practices – though the change often has been as much for economic and environmental reasons (which underscores the argument that regenerative farming is not an economic burden). Among other improvements, producers have: re-used water from processing facilities to irrigate fields; diverted excess storm water in orchards to “recharge” basins; used “waste” such as nut shells as compost for organic melon production; used hedgerows and bee forage to keep pollinator populations healthy; invested in “whole orchard recycling” to put organic material back in the soil; and used sensors to put the right amount of water in the fields. THOUGH GROWERS MAY use hedgerows or cover crops to help pollinators, this may not be a sustainable practice in seasons when there are water shortages. They see continued need for research into bee disease – an environmental challenge with significant implications. Not all strategies work for all grower situations – that’s why there is a need for a “dynamic, robust toolbox” to accommodate different crop conditions. Another example is finding new uses for byproducts – like the nutshells used as mulch or energy generation – that can enhance fruit, nut, and vegetable production while also helping other ag-related industries reduce their footprints. Finding new and better ways to compost, or returning materials to the soil contributes to carbon sequestration initiatives. Producers are constantly studying new technologies and trying them out. As with other farmers, specialty-crop growers see a need for value-chain collaboration, but in their case consumer demand is more visible. If wholesale buyers talked more to farm-sustainability officers, they would have a better understanding that the sustainable practices consumers expect may require additional costs that are not always shared down the supply chain. Consumers may expect “all natural” products, though such programs can be hard to implement; or they may want year-round crops, which are a challenge in times of water shortage or increased pest pressures. This also raises the question of North America’s respect for and understanding of food – which is cheaper here than in most places on Earth. Does the price we’re willing to pay for our food reflect the value we place on our environment? It’s a question ripe for a national and global dialogue.237240243244245248249250251For a diverse group of farmers and advocates from a range of specialties, there was astonishing little divergence in the morning of Dialogue. Representing different scales and types of farmers, participants spoke of a vision shaped by broad principles, even as each shared his or her own specific examples to make the case. The one noteworthy area of divergence was softened by a shared view of how it should be overcome. Farmers too often are blamed for environmental degradation, yet they are the vanguard of adapting the holistic “circle of life” to modern agriculture. At least one key farmer-leader stressed that “Agriculture is not broken,” adding, however, that “There’s always room for improvement.” Another countered that “maybe 10 percent of what we’re doing is wrong – we need to own our past. But what about the other 90 percent? We are moving forward.” More important than these competing perspectives on where to begin the discussion, the group spoke with a unified voice in making the case for addressing urgent problems right now, while also envisioning continual improvement for the long term. And, they say, current and future change must be addressed not just on the farm but also along the value chain. The whole food system needs to be more nature-sensitive – including the regulatory and finance aspects. When farmers look at continual improvement, they don’t see steady, uninterrupted progress any more than Thomas Edison waltzed through all of his inventions. "I didn't fail 1,000 times,” he said. “The light bulb was an invention with 1,000 steps.” Great success is built on learning from things that initially went wrong. Farmers are looking to enhance their own land and production by learning from mistakes and trying new experiments.

2021-04-22 09:12:22205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/12753/95

1717012323212

NoIn the Japan National Food Systems Dialogue with Japan Agricultural Corporations Association (JACA) held on 26th March 2021, MAFF explained the outline of FSS including the purpose and the key issues of sustainable food system and asked following questions. Q1 What kind of policy responses are necessary to reduce chemical fertilizers and chemical pesticides, and promote organic farming? What sort of measures should be taken by producers or administrators? Q2 What kind of new technologies are necessary for expanding agricultural productivity while reducing a negative impact on the environment by farming? Q3 For the farmers to work at environmentally friendly agriculture with motivation, how other stakeholders should be changed? Or what kind of cooperation do you want to ask them? Q4 What do you expect us to achieve at the Food Systems Summit? The members from JACA made comments on that.

234240244245248In this dialogue, we discussed challenges and opportunities especially related to Action Track 3.235240244245248The meeting with Japan Agricultural Corporations Association (JACA) was held to exchange opinions related to SDGs and sustainable food systems. Please see the attached file for details of discussions.

2021-04-22 10:42:48205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/8374/39

7484322151233219211118111123215101351910

This event was organised in recognition of the need to act urgently and across all stakeholders to address child wasting in Cambodia. The topic was chosen to complement existing work by the UN team to draft a roadmap for the Global Action Plan (GAP) and to present this to stakeholders to secure broader stakeholder engagement with the plan. The dialogue event was intended to build trust amongst stakeholders by sharing the information openly to government and other partners.The dialogue timing was in keeping with the timetable for rapid progress towards an endorsed national roadmap for the GAP. There were a wide variety of stakeholders engaged in the dialogue and some agencies submitted written comments if unable to attend the event. Participants were invited to prepare comments for inclusion in the discussion making sure that each of the relevant ministries were included in the invitations, as well as representatives of the donors, International Financial Institutions (IFIs), civil society the UN and the private sector. Government participants came from the Council for Agricultural and Rural Development, the Cabinet of Deputy Prime Minister HE Yim Chhay Ly, Ministry of Commerce, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, Ministry of Education Youth and Sport, Ministry of Planning, Ministry of Social Affairs Veterans and Youth Rehabilitation, Ministry of Women's Affairs and Ministry of Industry, Science, Technology and Innovation.Keep a balance in the time assigned to present information and the time required for full discussion of the topic. It is difficult for online events to run beyond two hours. At least half of the available time should be assigned to discussion. If feasible, combine questions, polls or quizzes with presentations to have a more interactive discussion with participants.

NoThis dialogue event was curated on the basis of the presentation of a draft National Roadmap for the Global Action Plan for the Prevention of Child Wasting, followed by opportunities for the government participants to comment on the draft roadmap and then for other participants from the development partners, donors, civil society and the private sector to do the same. This more formal approach was used to ensure that each of the ministries present would have an opportunity to voice their response and for all present to hear these responses. The draft roadmap was also circulated to all participants in advance of the meeting and there is ongoing opportunity for the submission of written comments to incorporate all stakeholder views. The event could have given more time for each of the stakeholders to express their views if they were consulted one by one (for the ministries) and then a general meeting was conducted after allowing time for incorporation of ministry feedback. The incorporation of this event into the dialogues was deliberate, as one step towards incorporating the substantive commitments to the GAP for Wasting into the Roadmap for Sustainable Food Systems. In order to go beyond opinions on food systems and to capture specific commitments that will contribute to the roadmap, this is a challenging step as it involves multi-sectoral and multi-stakeholder commitments and such processes are not readily accepted, without a formal and somewhat protracted process of consultation and discussion. Some ministries were receptive to the proposed roadmap, some preferred to provide feedback in writing or through a bilateral meeting and others contested the plan. Follow up actions to amend the roadmap and further meetings are required.

234238249UN agencies at regional and country level have supported the development of a draft Country Roadmaps for Action for Cambodia. The roadmap identifies a set of priority actions needed to accelerate progress on the prevention and treatment of wasting which can be integrated into broader national policies, strategies and plans and which is wholly relevant to Action Track 1 of the Food Systems Dialogue and Roadmap. The focus of this dialogue has been to engage actors in a discussion of the draft Roadmap across multiple systems (health, food, social protection and water, sanitation and hygiene) and multiple stakeholders (development and humanitarian partners, bilateral and multilateral organisations, civil society and the private sector). The UN in Cambodia recognises that it is crucial to integrate actions to prevent and treat wasting into existing and forthcoming national multi-sector nutrition strategies and plans including the National Food Systems Dialogues. The UN Agencies involved reconfirmed their commitment to support the Royal Government of Cambodia (RGC) in addressing maternal and child malnutrition in all its forms. The dialogue event provides an opportunity to present the Draft Country Roadmap for Action to the RGC and other interested parties, to discuss the plans and to continue with progress towards the elimination of wasting. The dialogue event served to inform stakeholders of the plan, facilitate broad discussion and to elicit focused responses from representatives of key ministries and institutions.235238249The main findings were that there was more work required to follow-up with ministries by the various UN agencies (depending on which one is best positioned with each ministry or institution), and to follow-up on input received to reflect it in an updated version, outlining more clearly which Ministry is leading on the various activities, and who is supporting them in the implementation. Because the plan was presented in English there was a challenge for many participants to grasp the detail. Simultaneous translation helped to provide clarity for the discussion. In general, the substance of the plan was seen to be sound, with a requirement that errors in nomenclature and agency roles be corrected. Useful additions to the plan came from the World Bank and Pooling Partners for the Cambodia Nutrition Project and from other agencies implementing relevant activities in the target areas. The participants also added the prevention and treatment of Moderate Acute Malnutrition (MAM) into the plan, making a substantial commitment to tackle the problem and boost the support to the Ministry of Health and other relevant ministries for this critical task. The priority remains for the prevention and treatment of Severe Acute Malnutrition (SAM) and the Ministry of Health needs substantially increased resources to lift the level of treatment for the most severe cases.236238249The Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) support for the plan will mainly be delivered through the Research for Development, Extension and Education and the MAFF are working closely to improve the quality, diversity and safety of produce, including in cooperation with neighboring countries for developing standards and guidelines for ASEAN. The work of the National Nutrition Programme to be more clearly acknowledged and correctly referenced in the plan. The General Secretariat of the National Social Protection Council will provide additional feedback to clarify existing social assistance measures relevant to the plan. The Ministry of Rural Development asked that WASH should be reflected in more areas of the plan as it is essential for all four outcomes. The authors of the draft plan explained that they were asked specifically to limit the number of activities under each outcome and that if one activity contributed to more outcomes, that activity should only be mentioned once to avoid repetition. Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport confirmed that element of the plan relating to school were suitable for them. The Ministry of Planning and Ministry of Industry, Science, Technology and Innovation asked that due consideration be given to encouraging research into the benefits of fortification of children's food. Clarification of the term first years of children's life was sought to ensure consistency with a focus on the 1000 day window and on children under five years of age in the policies of the Royal Government. A plan for social and behavioural change communication was strongly recommended as an element of the plan and it was suggested that the prevention of unwanted pregnancies should also be part of the education aspects. The means of implementation were discussed and it was recommended by civil society representatives that the multistakeholder platforms at national and sub-national level were critical to success. These platforms should be explicitly mentioned in the implementation plan. The contributions of the Cambodia Nutrition Project were summarised and additional information was submitted for the existing and planned contributions of the project to the prevention and treatment of wasting in children. These activities were incorporated into the plan. Participants asked for greater clarity on who does what and suggested that a detailed mapping exercise would be very valuable for determining which activities will be supported and then activating the plan.237249No major areas of divergence emerged in the dialogue, although some participants were critical of nomenclature, hierarchy and lack of clarity in the specification of roles. This clarity is required for all ministries and government institutions and also applies for other agencies. Opportunity to correct these errors was provided in follow-up to the event.

2021-04-23 10:11:01204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/9775/18145194

128411141124212232

Yes

234238245249251GrowHer.org is a microsite that provides women agripreneurs the platform to upskill themselves with useful tools and new skills, read inspiring stories of other women in agriculture making their mark, and to collaborate and attend events across the value chain - creating sustainable food systems for generations to come. Major focus of the discussion was: Important roles and contribution of women in the food systems. On 31st of March 2021, aligned with the celebration of International Women’s Month, GrowHer.org launched in the Philippines. The launch was remarkable as it was the first in-country launch of the platform. The program became an avenue for collaboration among civil society groups, government agencies, and the private sector in supporting the GrowHer microsite through contributing content, sharing resources, and partnership opportunities for women in agriculture. The launch also aired and released a Manifesto Video, recognizing the important roles that women play in the food and agri-ecosystem. The launch was led by AGREA, Corteva Agriscience, and Grow Asia. It was supported by the Netherlands Embassy in the Philippines – a major supporter of agriculture and gender equity initiatives, SPARK Philippines, and UNFSS Dialogues. The launch complemented our 2020 program entitled How Women Feed The World: A Digital Talk on Women in Agriculture. The said webinar complemented the conclusions of Roundtable on Gender Equity and Empowerment last 2019, and support for Magna Carta of Women in Agriculture. It also presented current opportunities and investment for women in agriculture on the following key areas: education, sustainable livelihood, peace and security, and health and nutrition.235238239241244249251II. Main Findings The launch on GrowHer March 31st, 2021 – was a fruitful discussion and call to action and partnerships. Major focus of the discussion was: Important roles and contribution of women in the food systems. Here are the major findings of the discussion: A. Current status of women in the food systems • Globally, less than 2 in 10 landowners are women. Women farmers in the Philippines make financial decisions with their husbands. Women farmers in the country have more control managing household expenses and are among the most empowered in Southeast Asia (according to a study published in the Scientific Journal Food Policy in 2017). • In food and nutrition globally, more than 50% of workers (in agriculture) are women. But women have less rights, less income, less access, and not valued. FAO, WFP, and IFAD have looked at it and have researched that if women would have access to all tools in agriculture and food production along the whole food value chain, they would be able to produce better until 10%. And with ‘better’, it means good quality of food. It is concluded that if women have equal access to public, legal, and financial services, hunger and malnutrition could be down by 25%. • World Food Programme (WFP) estimated that at the end of last year (2020), there could be some 130 million people who are hungry. It is a huge challenge on how we can help women that are working in the fields, and are working on rural environments to have enough income, to have enough food to feed their families, and to nourish them. • In 2018, Corteva Agriscience commissioned a global study of more than 4000 women in agriculture to really understand their pain points and their key challenges, and to look into gender inequality. It was across 17 countries, 24% in Asia Pacific. It was found out that universally, women love being in farming and agriculture, but at the same time the challenge of gender inequality is still a prevalent challenge for them. Whether that’s the income disparity, the land ownership issues, or access to training, finance, and other resources. • Filipina agricultural workers are also the most overworked, compared to their South Asian peers. The Filipina farmers juggle the most significant workload at home and at the farm. To cut it short, women farmers work more, but they are also paid less. • Barriers for women in agriculture include access to farm inputs, credit, market know-how, and land ownership – must be entirely eliminated, and create better and incentivizing farming conditions. • According to WFP, 97% of the money that families are receiving from the Social Amelioration Program of the Philippine Department of Social Welfare and Development, was being spent on food alone. B. CALL TO ACTION: What can be worked out to support Filipino women in their role and contribution to the food systems? • Exposing the inequalities is a first step towards remedy. Listening to the women in the communities, in the farms, in the grassroots about their stories and experiences. • Implement initiatives that fosters partnerships, brings together stakeholders from all sectors, and puts women at the center. • Increase efforts in breaking down the barriers that discourage women into agriculture. Barriers such as access to farm inputs, credit, market know-how, and land ownership – must be entirely eliminated, and create better and incentivizing farming conditions for the Filipinas. • Implement financial assistance program that can further narrow the gender disparity in agriculture, like the AgriPinay of the Agricultural Credit Policy Council (ACPC). • Providing women more resources, information on agriculture and business, as well as sharing inspiring stories about women farmers and entrepreneurs. • Multi-stakeholder collaboration for nutrition-sensitive agriculture: growing food that are nutritious. • Multi-stakeholder collaboration for social-behavioral change communication, and seek to understand ‘what is it that is a barrier for women having more nutritious food put on their households’? • Opportunity to link up SUN (Scaling Up Nutrition) Business Network to small and medium enterprises, especially those that are women-run: looking at where the value chain opportunities are for them. • COLLABORATION: It is about the power of SHE, and when women come together – they create the power of WE. If women come together, they start to talk about their experience and about their dreams. And many women dream about a better world for themselves, but most especially for the next generation. • Invest in good nutrition. It starts at home for all children, boys and girls alike – because that is where equality starts. • Inform and push our work towards promoting women’s economic empowerment.236238239240241244249251A. Best practices in creating and enabling opportunities for women in the food and agriculture sector: what works best, what were the challenges, and how to address these challenges? • The best way to know what the key challenges are for women in the food and agriculture system, is to talk to them. • Provide women-only training in some cases so they have access to customized training. • A lot of women felt that they do not have is recognition. Awareness on the important roles that women in the entire agriculture value chain - amplify the role they play, give them a voice, and make them more visible in discussions about the sustainability of our food systems. • Building a community of women in the agriculture and food system and empower them through role models. Have a support system of female entrepreneurs and food systems workers who support each other. • Increase the number of women in the food system workplace, especially in leadership roles. • Invest in women: when she wins, her family wins, her broader community wins, all of us wins. • Make sure the pay is reasonable, work hours are reasonable because you have to recognize that they are mothers, and condition of the workplace should be good. • Have a series of conversations with female farmers. They are parents, they nurture their children and guide them in choosing their career and consult with them. In exploring challenges with the parents, then together we will find practical solutions to these problems. B. How can you support the advancement of gender equality at the farm level, and network level? • Create partnerships and support linkages and help the projects in scaling up to support more women farmers. • Conduct knowledge exchange events, to help in exchange experiences and information with women farmers. • Collective effort. Identify the gaps, they identify common resources that the companies can work on, and collaborate in building, scaling, and leveraging on these resources to help farmers have access to market, financing, training, and capacity building. C. How collaboration is imperative to foster gender response in any sector, including agriculture? How can we grow more opportunities for women in the food and agriculture value chain? • Collaborate with different agencies – national, local, municipal, NGOs and the private sector. Successful projects cannot be implemented without collaborative effort. • Women farmers not as producers but also as processors. Open women to opportunities that can help them climb up the ladder of the value chain. • Organize women into groups with legal registrations, so that they can access and participate to other programs of the government and private institutions. D. Inputs and Suggestions for the Magna Carta of Women in Agriculture • Establish associations for female farmers at the local level. Coming together as a decision-making body empowers women, and at the same time they can contribute significantly to the well-being of the community. • Balance of quantity and quality in opportunities for women in agriculture. Put targets in the Magna Carta (ex: increasing the number of women in leadership roles). We also have to take into consideration the quality – how they are engaged, how do they benefit? How can women use and access the opportunities and platforms?237There were no areas of divergence.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/BRIEF-PROFILE-OF-SPEAKERS-1.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Transcription-of-Keypoints-GrowHer-Launch-1.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/UNFSS-REPORT-1.pdfhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcP4UDnn34I

2021-04-23 16:08:19204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/7117/194

122115663730506931173498376238862178891213991381101219

Our planning team kept the Principles of Engagement in mind throughout the process of organizing our Independent Dialogue event. We communicated the Principles to our participants in advance of the event in our Participant Guide, shared them verbally at the beginning of the event and right before the breakout discussions began as well as distributed them to participants via a link if they wanted to explore the principles further.Act with urgency: We worked to hold our event as soon as possible in order to kickstart further engagement with the FSS process from our participants. Commit to the Summit: Our invitation materials explained the premise of the FSS and encouraged participants to learn more. We also included more context about the FSS in the opening remarks of the event. Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity: We very carefully curated our invitation list to ensure as many voices as possible were represented. Our participants encompassed more than 12 unique (self-reported) stakeholder groups. We also kept diversity of viewpoint, role, age, gender and geographical location top-of-mind when organizing our participants into discussion groups. Build trust: We emphasized that the Dialogue event would follow the Chatham House Rules and that while participants are free to discuss and make use of the concepts discussed, they should not share the identify of other participants or any direct, attributed quotes from the discussion. Be respectful, recognize complexity, complement the work of others: We held a training session with our discussion group moderators in advance of the event to share these principles along with guidelines for ensuring they were followed during the discussion groups.We recommend communicating the Principles to participants several times (including in advance of the event) so they have time to consider them and keep them top-of-mind during discussions. For the “build trust” Principle, we suggest giving participants specific guidance on how they should and should not communicate about their attendance at the event and what they can share.

Yes

234238239240241242243244248249250251The U.S. animal agriculture community is highly engaged in the work of the UN Food Systems Summit (FSS) and has a track record of progress and ambitious commitments that align with the FSS’ focus on enhancing sustainability. Americans today have access to one of the safest, most diverse, and most affordable food supplies in history, and American agricultural and food products feed millions of people around the world - thanks in large part to the efficiency, productivity, and innovation of the U.S. agriculture and food supply chain alongside the United States’ robust science- and risk-based regulatory system. The U.S. animal agriculture community believes the FSS can have a positive impact on not only the future of our own U.S. food system but the global system, as well. The Animal Agriculture Alliance, a nonprofit working to bridge the communication gap between farm and fork, took the opportunity to contribute to the FSS by convening an Independent Dialogue event titled “U.S. Animal Agriculture as a Solution to Food Systems Challenges.” This Dialogue brought together stakeholders from across the U.S. animal agriculture community to engage meaningfully, explore collectively and emerge resiliently for sustainable food systems. Through engagement and discussion, the Dialogue considered animal agriculture’s role in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals and ability to be a “game changer” in delivering progress across all five Action Tracks of the FSS. The U.S. animal agriculture community is broad and diverse, and the Dialogue event reflected that concept. Participants were carefully selected from various key stakeholder groups, including farmers and ranchers (of all sizes), animal agriculture organizations, companies (animal health, nutrition, genetics, integrators/processors), restaurant/retail/foodservice companies and organizations, environmental NGOs, dietitians, youth/young farmers and veterinarians/academics/researchers. Diversity in educational background, age, gender and geographic location was also taken into account when selecting attendees. The discussion was intentionally organized to cover as many topics as possible in order to take advantage of the various types of expertise among participants. Participants were sorted into discussion groups centered by the five Action Tracks of the FSS. Assigned facilitators led each group in a conversation around their Action Track with a set of pre-developed questions (some were common across all Action Tracks, others were unique to specific Action Tracks). The structure of the Dialogue event worked well to allow us to achieve our goal: a broad discussion of the role U.S. animal agriculture is currently playing and can play in developing the sustainable, resilient food system of the future.235238239240241242243244246248249250251Sustainability must not be viewed as a single, exclusive destination, but rather as a diverse, continuous, and inclusive journey. Participants agreed that the U.S. animal agriculture community (from farm to fork and beyond) is among the most sustainable in the world (based on life cycle assessments, increases in productivity, reductions in GHG, and other data-based measurements of sustainability) and that all stakeholders, across many different areas of expertise, different production systems, and different sizes, can and must find commonalities and work productively together. Participants agreed that optimizing animal agriculture’s environmental impact is an ambitious but attainable goal, which can only be achieved via sustained, long-term active participation of all stakeholders with a goal of constant innovation and improvement. Goals must clearly incorporate and build on significant progress thus far, which is often not well understood by key audiences (including governments and consumers). The substantial contributions and commitments across the food and agriculture supply chain represent huge improvements and also offer the greatest potential as pilots to scale for further gain. Throughout the Dialogue, stakeholders highlighted challenges with the framing and definitions of key concepts and issues. Participants felt it was important to acknowledge that our food supply is the most effective and productive in history, with room for improvement - rather than viewing the system as inherently broken or negatively impacting people and the planet. Participants also highlighted the power of inclusive approaches - by agreeing that all production practices can be made more sustainable we allow all stakeholders to participate, rather than setting unrealistic extremes that exclude some communities entirely. It is also important to note that all industries have some level of environmental impact – not just agriculture. Food is foundational to our survival and health, and while animal agriculture should (and will) do all it can to address challenges of sustainability, other industries need to mitigate their impacts as well and conversations around sustainability should be inclusive and collaborative while encouraging everyone to do their part. Defining “sustainable” and “healthy” is not easy, because in reality these words do not represent one single, universal outcome. Definitions should not overwhelm or undermine continuous improvement efforts. Sustainability and health are always context-specific and interdependent. The correct framing is important to allow understanding and agreement on the priorities and actions that are most feasible and impactful. Participants also highlighted the importance of holistic analysis to understand and prepare for trade-offs and areas of synthesis/reinforcement. Participants agreed that food systems must become more sustainable while also ensuring continued sufficient nutrient-dense food supplies that are safe, accessible, affordable, and appropriate to diverse consumer needs. The animal agriculture community should continue striving to optimize its nutritional and environmental impacts, and food systems should focus on encouraging consumers to build and maintain overall healthy diets, with attention to balancing needs including nutrient-density, diet quality, diet diversity, consumer acceptance, taste, value, convenience, safety, and more. Stakeholders estimated that 60% of sustainable gains over the next 30 years will come from conventional agriculture, and that these 30 years will be the most influential and important in the history of agriculture. Farmers and ranchers must be central to the work and to decision-making; currently where decisions are made is very distant from where change actually happens. It is not feasible for the necessary gains to be achieved without the active involvement of and engagement with conventional agriculture stakeholders who are already leading the way in this area. Public understanding and trust of food systems is key to sustainable choices, as well as to attracting and retaining the talent needed to secure the future of the agricultural and food supply. Efforts need to be made to ensure that all voices contributing to discussions of food systems (including those involved in food marketing) are communicating accurately and not contributing to public misconceptions around sustainability. Participants agreed food systems must also work now to enable the next generation of farmers, ranchers, growers, and innovators across the food and agriculture supply chain.236238243244248249250251Discussion topic 1: Action Track 1 ❏ Stakeholders agreed that fundamentally sustaining human life through high quality nutrition and preventing malnutrition while mitigating impact on the environment must be the main objective of Action Track 1. This can be achieved through promoting and advocating for production and processing of nutrient-dense food, including meat, poultry, dairy, eggs and seafood. ❏ A more open, predictable, rules-based global trading environment with fewer barriers will facilitate more efficient movement of agriculture and food products, including to regions suffering from malnutrition and food insecurity. ❏ While the availability of nutritious food is a key element, participants agreed that consumer awareness, education, and choice are equally important. As has been seen with COVID-19 vaccines, just because a product or service is available and proven effective does not mean that every consumer will take advantage of it. Educating the public on how all foods can be made more sustainably must be a priority addressed by the FSS. Embracing animal agriculture’s potential and amplifying the cutting-edge work taking place will also help attract brilliant and inspired minds into the field of agriculture. Discussions about food choice and any attempts to make recommendations also need to be considerate of cultural relevance, religious beliefs, and other familial reasons for why people eat what they do. ❏ Support for small-scale stakeholders across the globe is also critical. Investments, partnerships, and support to implement lessons learned can help increase global sustainable practices across the board and help smaller businesses and farmers thrive sustainably while alleviating burdens on the environment and the food system.236239243244248249250251Discussion topic 2: Action Track 2 ❏ Participants expressed serious concern that the FSS may be defining sustainability and healthy in ways that exclude the majority of stakeholders in the food and agriculture supply chain. Such approaches will exclude valuable expertise, ignore practical solutions, and impact consumers’ understanding of the current and future impact of their food choices. To gain the support needed to actually work, FSS approaches must be inclusive and flexible. ❏ Participants agreed that the FSS should focus on making diets more sustainable and more nutrient-dense, not focus only on a narrow set of policies, practices, and products that target specific foods and/or are not inclusive of diverse needs and choices. For example, fruits and vegetables provide great nutritional value, but meat, poultry, dairy and eggs are very nutrient-dense and should not be discouraged. Produce is also most likely to be wasted. ❏ Participants noted that nearly all foods are processed in some fashion and that food processing should be viewed in light of its role in healthy and sustainable diets, not as a negative characteristic to be limited or eliminated. Practical solutions for more diverse, healthy, affordable and sustainable diets must include innovations and improvements in food processing. Solutions that denigrate specific foods or seek to limit production, consumption, or consumer choice will not contribute to implementation of real, urgently needed solutions based on evidence and proven impacts. ❏ Participants agreed that progress is being made every day across the food and agriculture supply chain, including to reduce emissions, improve efficiencies and provide the best products to consumers. Participants cited numerous examples of innovations that have reduced energy, land, and water use all while producing more food for a growing population. Participants urged that all stakeholders embrace and amplify these gains to reach our shared goals and to convince the public of the value and impact of practical improvements that must be continued.236240243244248249250251Discussion topic 3: Action Track 3 ❏ Participants agreed that the food and agriculture supply has made considerable progress to drive more sustainable practices over recent decades, and that progress should be celebrated. Ensuring sufficient awareness, understanding, and positive attention to these advances is critical to incentivizing stakeholders to continue to invest in these practices and to increase their efforts. Efficiency and productivity must be encouraged and celebrated (no other sector denigrates efficiency; for example, fuel-efficient cars pollute less and are encouraged), and there must also be consideration of farmers’ interests in being good stewards and protecting economic viability. ❏ Participants expressed concern that stakeholders’ significant resources, time, and commitment invested in increased efficiency, productivity, quality, etc. are frequently discounted or even denigrated, discouraging efforts that should instead be praised, encouraged, and scaled up. Farmers and ranchers are particularly impacted by this vicious cycle and should be front and center in developing and implementing all solutions for more sustainable food systems. ❏ Participants agreed that greater consideration is needed for measuring outputs and incentivizing improvements, as well as for the incredibly difficult nature of measuring carbon output and sequestration. Discussion included creating consistent terminology and metrics for understanding improvements like emission reductions, carbon sequestration, and protecting natural resources and creating programs to adequately pay for and reward achievements in these areas.236241243244248249250251Discussion topic 4: Action Track 4 ❏ Participants noted the tremendous impact of the food and ag supply chain on livelihoods in the United States and the critical importance of sustaining full and productive employment and decent work for all actors along the food value chain. Participants also discussed challenges and opportunities for enabling entrepreneurship and addressing uneven access to resources. ❏ Participants noted that agriculture and food businesses vary widely - this is not a sector where one size fits all, so recruitment, training, and retention can be challenging. The challenges, particularly for economic viability, lifestyle (urban v. rural) and consumer perception (whether agriculture is seen as a desirable activity), also impact attracting and educating the next generation of talent. Focusing on diversity is also a high priority for the industry’s future. ❏ Participants felt that multiple types of production systems are and must be part of more sustainable food systems - for example, organic and conventional agriculture should not be viewed as mutually exclusive. Both are necessary to meet consumers’ needs and achieve our common goals. FSS solutions must recognize this truth and be revised to incorporate the best aspects of multiple systems of production.236242243244248249250251Discussion topic 5: Action Track 5 ❏ Participants highlighted that resiliency, like sustainability, must be based on three components - economic, social, and environmental (including context related to specific geographies) and must be viewed as a journey of continuous improvement. Farmer voices emphasized that their resiliency depends very much on flexibility and adaptability, which can be hindered by overly prescriptive regulatory approaches and by lack of understanding of on-farm realities. ❏ Resiliency is boosted by mutual understanding and enhanced communication between stakeholders, governments, technical experts, and consumers. Youth voices agreed with farmers about the need to embrace technology and innovation and not block farmers’ access to new tools. Youth voices were also particularly focused on improving ag and food stakeholders’ connectivity through digital media. ❏ Participants felt strongly that solutions must be centered around emergency planning and infrastructure investment. Across the globe, food systems were pushed to the breaking point due to the pandemic. The FSS has the ability to revisit the flaws brought out by the pandemic and address them so that no future generation is left at a disadvantage. The food system must be flexible, with a more active and involved stakeholder base ready to address issues proactively. This will require more advanced and efficient forms of communication between stakeholders, governments and scientific experts.237238239240241242243244248249250251Participants in this Independent Dialogue brought to bear a wide variety of perspectives from small scale farming to advanced sciences to veterinary medicine to environmental activism, but the Dialogue revealed broad consensus that the FSS must focus on practical, broad-based, action-oriented solutions backed by science, innovation, and proven impact - solutions that include producers of all sizes and types and at many points in their journey for continuous improvement and more sustainable systems. The FSS will impact farmers and ranchers the most of all stakeholders, and participants were concerned that some proposed approaches within the FSS currently do not adequately reflect producers’ realities, acknowledge their achievements, or recognize that conventional agriculture must shoulder the majority of work needed to achieve more sustainable food systems. Therefore, greater work is needed to appropriately frame the challenges, understand the landscape and horizon, and develop solutions for meaningful and lasting change. Participants identified key terms and concepts as not yet having appropriate, flexible approaches within the FSS - including sustainable, healthy, and nutrient-dense. As discussed in the Dialogue, sustainability is a journey, not a single or universal destination. Healthy diets are diverse, balanced, take into account nutrient density and are not based on denigrating specific nutrients, foods, and product categories. Participants also emphasized the importance of strengthening awareness of producers’ contributions and incentives for further achievements, educating consumers about the food system, and fast-tracking proven policies and innovations including by taking lessons learned into developing countries. While participants agreed that more needs to be done to provide consumers with accurate, balanced information about sustainable food systems, there was some disagreement about who is responsible for leading that charge and what level of responsibility food brands and retailers have in communicating information about animal agriculture to consumers. The animal agriculture community will need to work to become more unified in its efforts to communicate about sustainability in order to be more effective in ensuring public understanding.

2021-04-25 16:48:18204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/10429/88

30715711812151191138171293151

The Independent dialogue is a 2-days face-to-face meeting conducted to share experiences and discuss issues related to the Bandung city food system. The event was conducted offline to give more space for interaction among the participants and due to consideration that many people have experienced zoom fatigue. However, the dialogue was organized under a strict health protocol to avoid the risk of Covid 19 virus transmission. The Principles of Engagement were used as references in preparing the dialogue.The event adopted the Summit principles of engagement. We informed the participants that the dialogue was not only organized as a forum for discussing issues and seeking for joint commitment to achieve a sustainable food system for the city but also as a contribution to the Food Systems Summit for achieving the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. We embraced the complexity of the food system by inviting participants from different groups with different roles in the city food systems: government, academics, urban farming community, nutritionist, etc. To cover the sustainability elements, participants were divided into four group discussions: Economy, Social, Environment, and Wellbeing. 2-days events provide more time to "build trust", share concerns, ideas and discuss the issues more deeply.Visualization of the topic discussed may help the participants to understand better and provide transparency. . Everybody can re-visit them, make adjustments or provide feedback at any time during the events

Yes

234238239240242244246248251The dialogue was focusing on issues around the complexity of the Bandung city food system. A brief explanation about the food system approach was given on the first day since not all participants are familiar with this approach, as well as to build the spirit of collaboration among stakeholders from different groups. The participants were divided into four groups based on sustainability elements: Economic, Social, Environment, and Well-being based on their expertise, working area, experience, and interest. Through different stages, each group developed the vision, discuss current issues and what needed for achieving the vision based on existing initiatives, also potential innovation that can leverage the process.235238239240242243244246248249251The city/urban food system is unique since it is highly dependent upon the rural for the provision of food. During the discussion, participants agreed to integrate several principles: embrace the diversity of local food, apply sustainable/ responsible practices, improve governance in the city food system and stakeholder collaboration. Improved access to safe and healthy food for all was also raised and discussed during the dialogue.236238239248251WELLBEING: Participants in the Wellbeing group agreed that improved consumer awareness and knowledge on healthy and sustainable food is the key to support the transformation of consumption pattern which will lead to a healthy and productive life, particularly for the future generation. Several initiatives recommended: (a) Collaboration among stakeholders and build on existing programs; (b) Conduct massive campaign particularly for youth through social media and engage influencers; (c) Capacity building for food SMEs /retailers in technology and gastronomy; (d) Intervention through school canteens to provide healthy food for students236240242244245248249ENVIRONMENT: Participants in the Environment group highlighted urban farming initiatives as one of the ways to support availability and access to healthy food for the communities. The local government needs to regulate the use of vacant land for this purpose. Green technology should be developed to optimize productivity in urban farming. Enabling policy environment for green finance /investment should be improved for this purpose. Besides production, the participants also discussed the utilization of food waste for food production (circular economy)236238242243246249ECONOMY: How to ensure and monitor the city food reserves and availability, food price stability, access to food were several issues identified and discussed by participants in the Economy group. The participants agreed that it is required to improve infrastructure, governance, and enabling policy environment to address the challenges. A reliable information system is also needed to support the implementation236238239248251SOCIAL: According to participants in this group, the socio-economic level of the community (income, level of education, parenting style) influences the diets of the community. Therefore, government and relevant stakeholders need to develop and strengthen programs to improve knowledge and access to quality food, for the poor and marginalized groups. Other issues discussed were related to consumer awareness of the diversity of food sources in Indonesia so that they should not depend on only certain food products to cover their nutrition needs. Innovation and creativity in processing local food source, usage of low investment and appropriate technology by SMEs, and involvement of public figures, trendsetter, and informal leader in the campaign will support the achievement AT1237242248249The area of divergence that emerged during the discussion is whether urban farming initiatives are significant enough to support food security in the city. Some participants said that this could be achieved through optimized use of technology, while others thought that the contract farming model with farmers in the surrounding areas should be considered more to support the city food security

2021-04-26 09:43:00204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/13865/57203

9500

Yes

234238239244The objective of the dialogue was to create a setting and show case selected game changing solutions with a scalable potential with the overall aim to highlight actions to accelerate food systems transformation. At the end of the event the participants delivered ideas on actions and next steps to accelerate game changing solutions within food loss and waste as a contribution to the UN Food Systems Summit 2021.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWlfAeBtR5E&t=90shttps://onethird.dk/independent-food-system-dialogue/

2021-04-26 14:57:27205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/13936/95

1293435312114

NoIn the Japan National Food Systems Dialogue with the Committee Meeting on New Policies for Agricultural Communities held on 18th March 2021, MAFF explained the outline of FSS including the purpose and the key issues of sustainable food system. The members from the committee meeting made comments on that.

234239240244248251In this dialogue, we discussed challenges and opportunities especially related to Action Track 2 and Action Track 3.235239240244248251The dialogue with the committee meeting on new policies for agricultural communities was held to exchange opinions related to SDGs and sustainable food systems.The main remarks of the participants are as follows. (1) SDGs is a way of global thinking, but when creating a vision for RMO (Regional Management Organization), there are voices from the local side to include SDGs. It is important not only to support the rural areas because they suffer from fatigue, but also to spread the idea that what they do is good for someone on the earth, to national units, prefectural units, and even smaller units. (NPO) (2) It is difficult to achieve the goals by agriculture alone, but it is important to achieve the goals through inclusion of the manufacturing and transportation processes of chemical pesticide and fertilizer, for example, CO2 zero emission goal. (professor’s comment) (3) Regarding innovation originating from rural areas, I would like to emphasize not only unilaterally leaving it to private investment, but also relationships in which different players have empathy with each other (professor’s comment). (4) I think that Japanese agriculture has a double standard, which consists of agriculture for the sake of economy and profits, and agriculture for sustainably growing vegetables by themselves. The latter remains firmly in Japan, and it may be possible to consider this as a model for sustainability (the private sector). (5) Young people have a feeling to empathy with SDGs, so it would be good if we could foster SDGs, including local SDGs (Regional Circular and ecological Sphere), as words that can positively grasp the future, (the private sector) (6) Advanced cases of SDGs in Japanese rural areas are not well known due to their weak information dissemination ability. I feel that the commonplace of Japanese rural areas may be one of the most advanced cases in the world. It is very valuable to disseminate that information to the world. (the private sector) (7) The global food crisis is imminent, but rice surplus is one of the biggest problems in Japan. I think we will protect the rural areas by making rice, so I would like to ask the government to create the necessary support system and mechanism so that we can continue to grow rice in rural areas in the future. (agricultural producer’s comment) (8) If SDGs are reflected on the regional level, they will reach to the issues of agriculture, forestry, food loss and waste, even in urban areas, so the affinity with these things is very high. (professor’s comment).

2021-04-27 01:41:41205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/14019/95

440112211

NoMAFF held the dialogue with stakeholders for developing the new strategy for realizing both the productivity improvement and sustainability through innovation, called “Measures for achievement of Decarbonization and Resilience with Innovation (MeaDRI)”. MAFF explained the outline of a draft of MeaDRI to the stakeholders, followed by the expression of views of the stakeholders on challenges and opportunities for sustainable food systems associated with the strategy.

234239240242244248249The expression of views of the stakeholders on challenges and opportunities for sustainable food systems associated with the new strategy, “MeaDRI”.235239240242244248249The main remarks of the participants are as follows. (1) It is possible to develop agricultural production and the wide- range businesses using profits from solar power generation of farmland. Such income other than farming will enable us to regenerate idle plots and lead to resolution of unused farmland. (2) Younger generation is highly interested in new perspectives, and it is important to change the way agriculture is performed by energy use. In addition, as they are also highly interested in environmental issues, the conversion of agriculture itself to one with a low environmental load through the conversion of energy will lead to fostering the next generation. (3) For the sustainable development of agriculture, it is necessary to build a sustainable energy supply and demand system in Japan, including by technological development. Also, we need to present what agriculture and farm villages should be in 2050, so that we can help younger generation imagine agriculture in the future. (4) Regarding creation of innovation, the reason why the electrification of agricultural machinery such as tractors is behind that of overseas is that the domestic market is small and difficult to expand. We would like to ask the government to create an incentive for businesses from an international perspective, including technology transfer to developing countries. (5) In rural areas, power transmission lines are not sufficiently developed. Therefore, it is important how to consume the generated electricity in the area. Using an EV car as a storage battery, it charges electricity on farmland during the day and uses it at home at night to contribute to “local production for local consumption”. (6) For woody biomass power generation, securing dried wood chips, maximizing heat utilization, and commercializing biochar are important. We would like to realize “local production for local consumption” by installing the power generation facility near the heat demand such as farmland and shortening the distance between the farmland and the power generation facility (within 30km). (7) By utilizing bio-gasification technology and using heat and biochar generated as by-product, it is possible to contribute to creating a recycling-oriented society even on a small scale. (8) A biogas plant that utilizes livestock manure requires a high maintenance cost of the facility. Effective use of digestive juice as liquid fertilizer leads to reduction of chemical fertilizer, and therefore, we would like to ask for the governmental support for its maintenance costs.

2021-04-27 07:24:34204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/7592/18203

338

In organising this dialogue, Food Agility aimed to embrace multistakeholder inclusivity by consulting with a network of more than 80 partners spanning the Australian food system. In addition, Australian and international experts from across the agrifood system were consulted. The Summit brought together leading experts to discuss big issues relating to data, digital and agrifood, acknowledging the complexity in the global food system and the synergies and differences in approaches and solutions across multiple industries and geographical areas.The Food Agility Summit was joined by industry bodies and leaders in R&D, AgriTech, venture capital investment, agronomy, AI, cybersecurity and more. The event was an inclusive, respectful platform for people to share ideas, discuss solutions and build trust in forging new relationships. The summit exemplified the principles of complexity and multi-stakeholder inclusivity. For example, our panel exploring Australia’s agtech industry (Hunting Unicorns in a Burgeoning Australian Agtech Industry) included venture capital investors as well as agtech scaleups to get perspectives from both sides of the proverbial fence. Our panel on industry-led innovation included policy makers, retail groups, industry bodies, and research to explore how collaboration between parties with conflicting priorities could best be achieved. And finally, in our panel The Rise of Sustainability, Climate Change, and Carbon Markets we heard from retail producers and equitable trade organisations and global tech about how these various issues impact all players in a supply chain and how they can work together to move towards a more sustainable and resilient food future. Building trust in sharing data was a key theme that spanned focus topics ranging from sustainability as a demand driver to AgTech solutions as productivity enhancing tools. Producers need trust to share data to enable development of decision-support tools. At the same time, consumers need trust in the sustainability of supply chains through the ‘radical transparency’ revealed by technology. By interweaving perspectives of retailers, ethical labels, AgTech start-ups, farmers and carbon market participants we were able to weave in the crucial theme of growing value through trusted supply chains.Ensuring a wide variety of perspectives on a panel will lead to both more robust discussion and a more engaging experience for your audience. Agreement can be powerful, but acknowledging complexity is thought provoking and stimulates exciting discussion.

No

234238239240241242243244245246248249250The Food Agility Summit was an interactive virtual event that brought together leaders from the agrifood technology and research sectors. The mission was to explore the trends, opportunities and challenges facing the Australian food system and the role of data and digital technology. Topics covered include: • Sustainability as a powerful demand driver • Environmental services as a new revenue stream for farmers once natural capital is valued • Cybersecurity in agrifood • The global agritech landscape and Australia’s place in it • What ‘resilience’ means mid and post COVID from global companies like Kelloggs’ • What ‘industry-led research’ means from the perspective of industry • Amazing research happening today • Education and research at global SMART Farms • How venture capitalists are investing in agritech • Australia’s leading agritech scaleups235238239240241242243244245248249250It was universally acknowledged in every panel discussion and presentation that collaboration – and effective communication between collaborating parties – was essential to securing our food future. This extended beyond parties contributing to innovative research, projects, and industry transformation as consumers were identified as a key piece of the puzzle. It was noted during the panel ‘The Rise of Sustainability, Climate Change, and Carbon Markets as Supply Chain Drivers’, that customers are rapidly adopting ethical purchasing behaviours and all members of a supply chain must ‘earn’ consumer loyalty. This could be achieved through ‘radical transparency’ and iterative improvement where brands continuously improve their social and environmental credentials and communicate these activities from paddock to plate. This topic was also highlighted in the panel ‘Flipping the Research: What does true industry-led innovation look like and how can we make it happen?’. The theme of sustainability closed a loop between consumers and producers. On the one hand, technology can reveal the transparency of supply chains to align to the rise of digital, values-based purchasing evidenced in Australia’s retail sector. On the other hand, the prospect of achieving 5% of farm gate revenue through provision of environmental services seems more possible with the rise of voluntary, private carbon and biodiversity markets which reward farmers for cultivating measurable natural capital. The ‘Agtech’ industry was identified as an entirely separate but complimentary industry to agrifood. The discussion ‘Hunting Unicorns in a Burgeoning Australian Agtech Industry’ explored how the production challenges of the future (e.g. feeding a global population of 10 billion people by 2050) would need to be met by technology. Therefore, agtech investment and adoption needed to be rapidly scaled up to meet these global challenges. Risk and resilience were explored from many angles, including through the lens of cybersecurity. It was noted that the move to agrifood system efficiency has increased production capacity but also led to ‘food security complacency’, as traditional risks are reduced and/or better managed but new risks, such as cyberattacks, data theft, and network disruption, remain unmodelled, or are managed in isolation.236239240241242243244245248249250Panel 1 – The rise of sustainability, climate change and carbon markets as supply chain drivers - COVID has seen a ramp up in digital consumer engagement and interest in the sustainability, and the shift seems likely to persist - Radical transparency will drive sustainable consumption and supply chain collaboration - Carbon and biodiversity markets offer valuable farm revenue streams if we can evolve the data-driven technologies necessary for markets to scale236238239240241242243245248249250Panel 2 – Flipping the research: What does true industry-led collaboration look like and how do we make it happen? - Australia leads globally in research outputs, but lags in industry-research collaboration. - Good communication is the cornerstone of effective collaborative relationships, we might not have the same motivations or objectives to participate, but we need to ensure we openly communicate the various perspectives coming into a project so that we can ensure everyone's expectations are acknowledged. - The Australian Government highly values industry-research collaboration and has launched a range of initiatives including CRCs, AIA and drought innovation funding to foster and promote industry-research collaboration.236239240241243244245248249Panel 3 – The global SMART Farm network - We agreed on the importance of integrating financial and sustainability performance indicators in generated data (certainly curriculum/training needs to showcase this type of ‘data’- ie should be more than just showing sensor data feeds). Evidence-based commercial relevance is important - Importance of ‘holistic’ SMART Farms that includes post-farm-gate with feedback into the farm operations/decision making. - All SMART Farms engaged early in initiatives related to environmental sustainability/carbon neutrality- there is a strong demand for this by stakeholders.236238239240241242243245248249Panel 4 – Hunting Unicorns in a burgeoning agtech market - While Australian agtech scale-ups would like to stay local, most find they must look overseas for capital, as the investment pool within the Australian market is limited and highly competitive. Overseas markets also offer exciting opportunities for companies to ‘collaborate and cluster’ in the global ecosystem. - Our panellists called on the audience to contact their super fund and demand investment in agriculture and agtech. Similarly, to call local government and demand investment in the technology to propel Australia’s most important primary industry. - Covid thinned the herd of Australian agtech scale-ups, but those who survived are thriving. With agtech a vital and growing part of the agrifood sector, a ‘unicorn’ Australian agtech company could be the next Bitcoin, revolutionising the industry. - Agtech is a distinct but parallel industry from agriculture and agrifood, which provides technology solutions to productivity challenges.236238239240241242243245248249Panel 5 – Cybersecurity in food supply chains - The interconnectedness of industrialised agriculture exposes global food systems to significant ‘unmodelled peril’, as risk within one sector (e.g. financial services) can have cascading impacts on other industries. Agriculture is particularly at risk of cybersecurity breaches thanks to long and complex supply chains with data points controlled by various entities. - The question of who is responsible for data and cyber security is important. Does the responsibility lie with the customer (e.g. the farmer who purchases software or agtech), or the service provider? In a ‘multi-party data ecosystem’ overlayed on the physical movement of food from paddock to plate, who is liable along a supply chain if a data breach occurs and other parties are impacted? - Cyber scammers have always been agile and adapted quickly with the cyber risks that Covid presented. All organisations have to learn new lessons, be ready to pivot to address new challenges237238239240241242243244245248There were numerous topics of disagreement and robust discussion between our expert panelists across the summit, especially in regards to that capacity for Australian agtech scale-ups to base their operations in Australia. Our panel ‘Hunting Unicorns in a burgeoning Australian agtech industry’ brought together VC investors and leading Australian start-ups who discussed the capacity for business growth in the Australian context. Opinions were divided as to whether an agtech company could grow without basing operations in larger markets such as South East Asia or North America where they could more easily ‘cluster and collaborate’ with the broader agtech ecosystem. Throughout the summit we held live audience polls to gauge our attendee’s attitudes towards a wide variety of issues. These polls revealed split opinions regarding a range of issues including consumer attitudes towards sustainability, the likelihood of an Australian agtech ‘unicorn’ emerging in the near future, and whether Australia is a good environment for investment.

2021-04-27 09:40:18204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/8532/87

93015402612058350271052110683272010050105102311180000010

The UNFSS Dialogue’s principles and guidelines were thoroughly followed while planning and organizing the Independent Summit Dialogue. The Dialogue was convened by Welthungerhilfe and Bhoomi Ka, and co-convenors were Revitalising Rainfed Agriculture (RRA) and Caritas India along with local civil society organizations. A steering committee was formed with representatives from various organizations with rich expertise in various topics related to food systems. The participants were also selected carefully to represent all the stakeholders involved in the food system, especially small farmers. Each participating organization played an active role in designing, decision-making, planning, engagement, implementation and executing the Dialogue.The Dialogue facilitated a platform for Government officials, subject experts, community leaders and farmers to come together and discuss all the five Action Track topics. Through a facilitated dialogue, it was ensured that each one remain respectful about others experience on the topic. Considering the complex nature of the food systems, a multi-stakeholder approach was ensured in the dialogue, and every participant was given a chance to share their views.All the principles recommended by Food System Summit 2021 are very essential for a human rights based approach. All the conveners should follow this to get various perspectives from different sections of the society. The Conveners should particularly focus on the representation of the rural community, who otherwise remain silent.

Yes

234238239240241242244246248249251The Sub-National level UNFSSD convened on 13th April 2021 primarily aimed (i) to collate suggestions on improving food systems in Jharkhand, considering aspects of production, livelihood, nutrition, consumption and resilience associated with Food; and 2) feed the collated suggestions to Jharkhand’s mainstream processes and UN Food System dialogue. The virtual summit brought together key stakeholders including farmers, community leaders, network leaders, CSOs, academicians and government representatives to guide individual and collective action towards a future of food that is sustainable, equitable and secure. This report analyses the feedback/recommendations put forth by the conveners and participants during the multi-stakeholder Independent Summit Dialogue on ‘food systems’ in Jharkhand. Overall, the content of the Dialogue was highly appreciated by the participants as it covered a diverse range of aspects under the discussion of Food Systems. It was especially found relevant in the current context when the COVID-19 pandemic and its devastating impacts have brought about a gamut of vulnerabilities into sharp focus and compelled the world to rethink about our food systems. The Dialogue witnessed insightful discussions by farmers and community leaders, and other subject matter experts generating comprehensive knowledge around land, water, and forest. The Dialogue focused on all Five Action Tracks decided in the UNFSSD. The current food systems of the world, including India are highly inefficient and inequitable in terms of production, distribution, and consumption. Jharkhand, home to a dominant tribal population, echoes strong symbiotic relationship between forests, land, and water. Here, people’s livelihoods are primarily based on agro-forestry. The agriculture practices in the state are gradually being influenced by urbanization, mining and industries, contract farming, etc.; land degradation and land erosion of topsoil are some of other crucial issues which is affecting productivity and soil quality. As Jharkhand is rich in minerals, availability of safe drinking water is also a concern issue in many places. A large portion of uplands remain underutilized due to lack of irrigation facility. According to ICAR data, only 9.5% the cultivated area in Jharkhand is irrigated. Productivity of a single crop is not enough to measure the success of agriculture; diversity of crops in farm, using fallow land should also be considered as major indicators which has a direct impact on diet diversity. It is quite evident that chemical fertilizer also play a major role in environmental degradation, operational health hazards and perpetuation of lifestyle and non-communicable diseases. In the wake of the pandemic there is a consensus among the nations of the world to transform the way the world produces, distributes, consumes and thinks about food is the need of the hour. A broad understanding is emerging that our food systems are a key factor in the environmental emergency: they contribute massively to malnutrition, global warming, biodiversity loss, land use change and soil nutrient loss. This makes it vital to transform the way the world produces, consumes, and thinks about food. Jharkhand being the state of untouched traditional wisdom and hub of nature friendly practices of food production and consumption, is an important example of sustainable practices involved in food systems. However, the voices of many crucial food system actors, have so far been underrepresented in the academic and policy discourse around food systems.235238239240241242244248249251The Independent Food System Dialogue, Jharkhand created a space for an essential dialogue and discussion especially during the pandemic which is severely affecting the food systems. Various dimensions of Food Systems such as social, economic, political environmental, health, livelihoods etc. were discussed during the Dialogue which was divided into three sessions. The first session was the keynote address given by Dr. T. Vijay Kumar, Special Chief Secretary to Govt., Natural Farming, Agriculture Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh; second session focused on Action Track wise breakout sessions, and the final session was a panel discussion on recommendations by the participants. Below are a few key findings and recommendations derived from the five Action Track discussions. • Jharkhand is a state of high undulated terrain resulting in large soil erosion, dominated by indigenous communities with a rich knowledge base of local and traditional crops and food systems. Most of these traditional systems are gradually eroding due to input intensive practices and energy dense food patterns promoted by the market. • It is important to encourage and ensure participation of the rural community in the planning process and execution of emerged plan for community led conservation of traditional high yielding seeds, soil water conservation measures. • Smallholder farmers play a crucial role in the growth of rural economy, not only in Jharkhand, but many part of the world by their multifunctional role of diverse food production, seed conservation and nature positive production pattern. Hence, it is very important to build their capacities on climate resilient farming systems and practices through practical demonstrations and accompaniments. Participatory Action Research (PAR) on crop performance/cost benefit analysis in control plots systems help in building confidence of small holder farmers. Along with this, vulnerability of the landless people also needs to be addressed adequately. • Emphasis to be laid on ‘nutrition’ besides ‘securing food’. Nutritious food in Jharkhand and many other places in the world is also being contributed by Tree based food, uncultivated forest based, traditional crops. It is important to bring back dignity of all these. • Reframe the National Procurement Policy of the government to buy local crops and supply them in public sector programs like Public Distribution System (PDS) in India. The National Food Security Act of India, specifically sections 3, 4, 5 and 31 have provision to support and promote the above action. • A collaborative platform is needed to take the discussion forward on issues related to agriculture, food and nutrition, and dietary diversity in the state. This platform can facilitate and promote possible innovative knowledge and practices in the state.236238239240241242243244245246248249251Owing to the ongoing rise in COVID-19 pandemic in the country, the Independent Summit Dialogue was organised online. The 3-hour programme showed an overwhelming response on the discussion topics by the diverse subject matter experts, panelist and smallholder farmers who participated and contributed to the Dialogue. The online platform, Zoom was used for facilitation of the Dialogue where everyone’s participation was ensured. The Dialogue was facilitated by representatives of the Civil Society Academy (CSA). The dialogue entailed clear and was divided into three parts – the first session was the keynote address shared an overall objective of the UNFSS, second session was a break out session on five Action Tracks. For each break out session one Facilitator/Rapporteur and one Keynote speaker were assigned; the third and last session was a panel discussion, where all the rapporteurs presented key recommendations on the five Action Tracks from the breakout session. A standardized format was used to capture each Action Track discussion to maintain uniformity. Food insecurity is a multi-dimensional issue, therefore it needs a multi-stakeholder and multi-sectoral approach to address the issues. However, there is lack of convergence in true spirit that is not significant to address the issue at the government level. Most of the time food security means proving benefit under certain schemes, like subsidized food at school childcare centre or households through fair price shop. As an outcome of the Dialogue, below are the issues which needs urgent action (in the next six months): • Framing agriculture policy for the state of Jharkhand with strong focus on ecological farming. (Action Track 3) • Forming a working group to facilitate action research and policy advocacy on efficacy of various nutrition sensitive farming and traditional food system and diet diversity. (Action Tracks 1 and 2) • Brining in various relevant campaigns and networks together on a platform to multiply already existing practices across the country. Some of these network are - Right to Food Campaign, MGNREGA Watch, Jharkhand Van Adhikar Manch, Sukhar Virodhi Abhiyan etc. These platforms could be used to share the possible innovative knowledge and practices in agriculture in the state. (Action Track 4) • A large-scale mainstream supported program on women led climate resilient ecological farming to be framed and advocated to the government. (Action Track 5) Action points in the long run: • Promotion of stubborn and indigenous/local crops through revival of millets and other crops on a community led campaign mode, introducing appropriate technologies for millet cultivation/processing. (Action Tracks 2, 3, 4 and 5) • Specific focus on upland rainfed to be brought up considering Jharkhand’s terrain. (Action Track 3) • Farm to fork approach to be promoted as a campaign message to bring in focus in all the necessary steps of food reaching from one place to another. Even to Preparation/cooking of food is an important aspect which needs looking into. Community should have the knowledge of how to cook the food without losing the nutrition in it. There is a possibility of initiating a campaign on consumption of indigenous food. (Action Track 1, 2) • A clear policy dialogue to be facilitated on ensuring procurement of local crop and assuring support price for that. (Action Track 2, 4)237238239240241242246249250251Below are few of the areas of divergence which came to light during the multi-stakeholder Dialogue: • Stigma associated with traditional crops and food – people think it is not ‘modern’ enough. o Need for awareness and changes in the policy to address this stigma/notion. o Recipe demonstration in schools etc. • Even if ecological farming is good, we are not able to scale it up. o Policy push is the need of the hour. o Revitalization of procurement to secure assured marketing. • Agriculture is considered only as ‘crop’ farming, hence other important components of livestock, forest, fisheries, commons are missed out – which also plays an important role in diet - o Policy push towards more convergence. o Integrated farming systems needs to be boosted. • Production, market and consumption does not understand each other’s pain point. • The stakeholders, especially NGOs actively working on issues related to food systems need to work on farm to fork concept. • To promote local food systems, Government should take proactive steps for decentralization of the procurement rules for public service program. Local food systems could be a viable option to address hunger and malnutrition, however, there is lack on intent to promote and sustain it. • Government appreciates organic farming, however there is not much effort as there is a misconception that organic production cannot cater to the large scale need of the state. There is also no assured markets available for farmers.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/IMG_20210413_111747-scaled.jpghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/IMG_20210413_104224-scaled.jpghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwNNbzT0JCo&t=13s

2021-04-27 13:34:56204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/4137/203

311

The dialogue was organized based on all the principles of the UNFSSD engagement. Invited stakeholders were food systems experts and leaders, including policy research institutions, universities, farmer organizations, agri-business, agricultural financiers, civil society, policymakers, oversight bodies, and the media from the African continent and beyond. The curators and convenors emphasized the importance of respect throughout all processes and chose prominent leaders to be the facilitators at each table.The dialogue reflected the urgency, respect, diversity, trust, and other principles. This manifested in the feedback we received during and after the dialogue, which was very positive, and a wish to continue the dialogues and implement the solutions.We would advise following the principles of engagements and the UNFSD method. We have realized it helps create a very positive and productive process.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246248249250251The African Vice-Chancellors’ regional food systems dialogue was convened to provide a multi-stakeholder platform for stakeholders to explore various existing and emerging approaches that have the potential to deliver sustainable solutions at scale and encourage collaborative action in to directly inform the United Nations Food Systems Summit proces. The Africa Vice-Chancellors’ regional food systems dialogues were represented in the following regions of the African continent: • East Africa • North Africa • Southern Africa • West Africa The Food Systems Dialogue program featured a plenary session and four parallel African geographical regions (East, North, Southern and West Africa) break-away sessions. The dialogue provided time and space for informal discussion groups, enabling participants to engage fully. Social media, including Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, formed part of the communications strategy to promote the dialogue as well as disseminate proceedings and outcomes. The Vice-Chancellors were joined by selected representatives of the scientific committee, food systems academics, policy experts, and the participants from the regional food systems dialogue to craft the message and shape pathways to sustainable food systems that will inform African universities` contributions to the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit.235238239240241242243244245246248249250251The Africa Vice-Chancellors joined the Sustainable Food Systems discourse to ensure that Africa does not only feed itself but feeds the world. The African University Vice Chancellors committed to driving the sustainable food system transformation agenda not just from the faculties of agriculture but university-wide in partnership with governments, development partners, private sector, civil society, consumers and international university partners in order to ensure healthy food, healthy people and a healthy planet. In addition, the Vice-Chancellors committed to reimagining the role of our universities for transdisciplinary knowledge co-creation and in particular the role of science and innovation in defining the food systems that Africa wants. The Vice-Chancellors emphasized the following: • Seek transformational approaches and solutions for broad societal interest and the common good; • Embrace collaboration and transdisciplinarity, ensuring the right skills and talents are around the table to address the challenges at hand; • Mobilise resources and harness partnerships for greater leverage, innovation, and impact; • Adopt a systems thinking approach to deal with the complexity inherent to sustainable food systems; • Co-design and co-create research and initiatives; • Embrace diversity and inclusivity to enrich research project design and expected outcomes; • Harness technology, ICT and Big Data as critical enablers; • Ensure ongoing relevance of our research, in line with changing societal needs, with appropriate translation into practice for sustainable and resilient food systems; and • Maintain a continuous pursuit of quality and excellence. • Frequently test our guiding principles against the evolving issues (new pandemics and shocks) we need to grapple with. The Vice-Chancellors envision an opportunity to bounce back better through: • Transformed African agriculture and food systems for improved health and livelihoods with shared prosperity. • Sufficient, safe, nutritious, culturally appropriate and consumer-driven food for 21st century Africa. • Empowered graduates, researchers and demonstrated research excellence.236238239240241242243244246248249250251In the food systems within which your university is embedded, what are the key constraints that prevent transformation towards a more sustainable system? - Multi-stakeholder engagement o No organized structures for linkages between the various actors in the food system o Lack of coherent linkages among stakeholders o Youth restlessness not only an African problem, but a global challenge o Silos between universities and other institutions and within our universities between departments agriculture, education, and research institutions due to lack of knowledge on systems as a whole and in their diversity. - Political Support o Poor links with ministries. Contributions of universities is seen as not important o Political red tape especially at municipality level, redirecting food waste, include industry in repurposing food waste, food waste at farm level is more streamline but logistically difficult - Capacity Building o Skills gap – we need to train students to address the problems of the past and train them to be practitioners in the food system - need to be trained to address problems of the future. - Resources o Inadequate funding for implementing programs- priorities of funders and government do not merge the major issues that need to be addressed in the food system o Inadequate capital to cope with rising costs of inputs, especially in livestock production o Unsustainable resource mobilization - Knowledge / Information gap o Poor identification of leakages along the food systems – data gaps e.g., what is the scale of food wastage in our region? o Uncoordinated resource mobilization o Poor flow of information, including agricultural advisories - Markets / Infrastructure o Logistics for small-scale farmers to move agricultural products o Limited storage and processing constraints and difficulty in accessing export market as well as lack of knowledge on quality of diet and nature of food regimes. o Economic constraints- poor technology and pricing system; Environmental constraints include poor soils and water system; Social constraints include, poor business networks and Governance constraints include poor policy support, poor market infrastructure and - Shocks o Climate change and unpredictable conditions is a challenge o Negative impact of climate change which has resulted in serious need for irrigation systems236238239240241242243244245246248249250251In the food systems within which you university is embedded, what are the key opportunities for transformed, sustainable food systems? - Infrastructure / markets o Leverage on ICT infrastructure that is already in place to develop solutions to community problems o During Covid-19 many lessons were learnt. Food tunnels at universities were used to feed students and teach them that sustainable food systems start at home. Food gardens are an important component. o Displaced people during Covid started food gardens successfully o Look at foods that are lacking in the diets such as fresh fruits and vegetables. More fruits and vegetables are needed to increase nutrients of concern in the diets of the continent. Production, processing, distribution and education integration to achieve solutions in the future o Innovation and digitalisation to increase resilience and productivity of small-scale farmers o The Covid19 crisis indeed could be an opportunity to think of more locally rooted food systems (what foods I can get from my environment?) - Stakeholder engagement /collaboration / partnerships o Opportunities for change through forums such as this dialogue o High percentage of young people in the region. They are creative and yet have not been given the opportunity to explore in sustainable food systems o A critical mass of people interested in business o Identify where the main leakages occur along the food system, which will create opportunities for research, collaborations as you fill the leakages. o There is immense opportunity for collaboration locally, regionally and internationally to advance understanding, strategize, build capacity and harness opportunities o Invest in diversification of agricultural production and consumption to curb the double burden of malnutrition o Emerging structure to break silo's between institutions but also within an institution. Often the focus is on a particular commodity - rather than on a food system including all multidisciplinary aspects and all stakeholders - Resource mobilization o There are opportunities for funding - Research opportunities / Capacity Building o Transdisciplinary research teams from different departments within Universities Public health problem is a problem that needs to be solved in real life and not only by research and academics, focus on production to consumption, include all the different departments to work on food system o Universities can share and learn from each other in regards to developed online courses and resources o Global nutrition summit is important as research is needed from higher education systems o Opportunities for business, research and collaborations o Availability of skilled and unskilled labour for farm activities; abundant fertile land, tropical ecology and grass lands and huge local markets due to adequate population, which translates into potential demand for all foods from agriculture o Emerging attempts at new forms of cross-disciplinary training focused on food supply chains & production systems together, so that agricultural extension and marketing, processing and digital innovation can be brought together. o Some attempts to link universities with agricultural colleges and ATVETs so that innovations will flow through the whole system and have impact236238239240241242243244245247248249250251What partnerships are needed to unlock these food system transformations? • Partnerships o Sustainable partnerships that have equal engagement and benefits –Partnerships should be mutually beneficial to all o Partnership with private sector, government (at national, regional and global level) community and academia– to ensure sustainable food systems (Mess problems require multiplicity of partnerships to get solutions) o strengthen our partnerships for better and richer learning and knowledge creation across global regions (North-South) as well as strengthen the south-South collaborations o Public private partnerships with support from government o Partnerships with civil society o South-South-North partnerships o Partnerships with all stakeholders in the FS, including policy makers local institutions- they would have to develop policies based on evidence and have strong political commitment and be more coordinated o Universities should balance, population increase, which is at a progressive rate whereas food increase is at an arithmetic rate o Partnerships in the 'green education column': university - colleges – ATVET; there is a need for Universities to build synergies and multi-disciplinary approach to solving problems o Universities need equitable partnerships with a training focus as well as research o Needed Partnerships are in the areas of research and innovations so as to increase agricultural productivity; mechanization and technology-driven value chain • Stakeholder engagement o Universities must leave the ivory tower mentality - universities to should connect with communities to address food system challenges o Universities (in the cities) must connect with farmers in rural areas to ensure relevant research • Research / ICT o Linking research, extension and the end users o Leverage technology to enable connection236238239240241242243244245246248249250251Given that food systems are typically comprised of many different actors, what are the challenges to traditional university governance systems? - Political / Socio responsiveness o Slow to respond – have culture that they are not to provide solutions for community problems o Most universities are public institutions; therefore, their policies are aligned towards the political agenda of the sitting governments therefore have no absolute academic freedom o The structures are generally not responsive to food system challenges o Interference by government o Lack of/weak policies on partnership, collaborations and linkage building. o Civil societies can be helpful in unlocking governance systems o Supportive policies for farmers as they are the providers of food, economic incentive for farmers, how universities approach policy agendas - Inclusivity o Lack of academic freedom which affects creativity and innovation o Silos of disciplines within universities - Strong Institutions o Innovative in the way we think and approach problems, policy challenges are a real problem, deepen governance and practicality of it o Create strong African think tanks and support government think and innovation, CoE’s is important - Capacity Building o Skills for trades in all the major areas need high tech facilities on campus but finance is limited so rote learning remains the main option o University staff have limited time /opportunities do research. Most of the time is spent on education o University system does not focus much on skills of the students they produce to be agile interdisciplinary professionals o Minimum effort to move towards sustainability science, which put a variety of actors at the same table to actually define research questions and go together to try and answer them would help end up with agreed upon solutions236238239240241242243244245246248249250251What are the skills and capabilities that Universities need to provide to its researchers and students to navigate, trigger and steward complex food system transitions? - ICT o Application of technology to tackle complex problem o Innovation in technology to scale-up agricultural productivity and accelerate food security such as solar, wind, water energy and agro-processing o Digital innovation - Entrepreneurial Skills o Co-create innovation/solutions that respond to community needs o Hands on skills o Critical thinking, Problem solving and Communication skills o People (Soft) skills o Entrepreneurship for the youth, young women and mothers to be involved in the food system o Entrepreneurial skills within different stakeholder groups connecting different universities - Networking o Collaboration skills (for private sector engagement) o Critical thinking skills and communication skills o Open-minded and receptive to informed change o T-shaped skills- possess excellent knowledge of and skills in specific areas and are good at working with others in a collaborative way - Research o Translation of research results to inform policy and practice o Curriculum must be relevant to the needs of the society o Agricultural Sciences is important to sustain and improve the food system o Researchers and students should be strongly encouraged to embrace practical, on-farm skills o Skills in interdisciplinary work and transdisciplinary (working with all stakeholders), graduates should be able to have meaningful conversations with all o Both soft and hard skills that allow management of people, materials and processes in the agricultural value chain. In other words, build skills in sustainability science, which means being solution-oriented / multi-actor and inter-disciplinary focused research as well as teaching. o Build skills on how to integrate teaching, research and service to community better close the loop to enhance sustainable food systems; skill at public policy analysis skills is also very important o Focus on applied research rather than basic research, in view of the transition we want to achieve.

2021-04-27 15:49:43204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/8888/203

5535021541295215315237101278

The Dialogue was convened by Meat Business Women (MBW), the global professional networking group for women working across the meat industry. MBW assures the sustainability of the sector by attracting and retaining the best possible talent. MBW operates internationally with over 6,000 members. In 2019, MBW was recognised by the United Nations as a solution to Sustainable Development Goal five – Gender Equality. The Dialogue was open to all of the MBW community and other stakeholders were encouraged to participate in the session which was heavily promoted across social media. The Dialogue theme was chosen with a specific goal of encouraging MBW participants to discuss a path forward for women leading the sustainability agenda for the meat industry. These open discussions not only flagged areas of synergy but also divergence. Each of the five breakout sessions was facilitated by a MBW member, and the session was curated by the Global Chair of MBW, Laura Ryan.The Dialogue fully reflected the Principles, building on the fact that MBW speaks with one shared voice to highlight the importance of attracting and retaining female talent into the meat sector, as well as the important contribution that women can make to the food system in areas such as food security, nutrition, climate change, and biodiversity. It also aims to build synergies among its supporters in promoting MBW’s mission. Our Dialogue embraced multi-stakeholder inclusivity in that it involved the full breadth of the MBW community. The breakout sessions were held under the Chatham House rules, which helped to build openness and trust, and enabled participants to reflect on their own lived experience.Food systems affect us all, and it is important to create a fully accessible virtual space where all actors across the agri-food value chain feel comfortable sharing their priorities, aspirations and challenges in an open manner.

Yes

234239241243244245246247248249250251The theme of the MBW Independent Dialogue was ‘AN INCREASED REPRESENTATION OF WOMEN WORKING IN THE GLOBAL MEAT INDUSTRY PROMOTES A MORE SUSTAINABLE SECTOR, WITH IMPROVED FOOD SECURITY, NUTRITION AND PRODUCTION.’ The dialogue brought together a diverse group of stakeholders in terms of experience, job roles and organisation type from across the global meat industry to explore gender as a lever of change to deliver a more sustainable meat industry. The group were challenged to identify game-changing solutions to deliver progress across the UN Food Systems Summit (UNFSS) action tracks, with a particular focus on: • Action track 2: Shift to sustainable consumption patterns • Action track 4: Advance equitable livelihoods The dialogue was structured through breakout sessions to address the following questions: • Who needs to be involved and what actions need to be taken to ensure the involvement and empowerment of women working in the meat sector? • What are the missing links in the diversity and success of the meat sector and how will better gender equality address this? • What impact could gender equality have on producing more sustainable food consumption patterns? • What impact could gender equality have on the productivity of the meat sector? • How can the meat sector drive gender equality and drive change?  235239241243244245246247248249250251The opening and closing sessions found broad consensus across the group around several key areas: • There exists a clear link between increased gender equality and a more sustainable meat industry. Businesses with diverse workforces: o More accurately represent their customer and employee base, meaning they have better access to vital insights and perspectives o Have more diversity of thought, which drives innovation and better risk management o Have access to a wider range of leadership styles, which drives engagement and productivity o Are more profitable and have better share prices. • The perception of the meat sector needs to evolve to reflect the role women play • Diversity and inclusion needs to be moved up the agenda • Strengthening networks and creating visible role models is critical • Disruption caused by COVID-19 presents the opportunity to rethink working practices which may previously have acted as a barrier to gender equality • There is a distinct lack of ethnic diversity within the meat sector. People of colour and indigenous people are under-represented at middle and senior levels. More work needs to be done in this area to understand the specific barriers and enablers to creating a more ethnically diverse workforce • A global representative body such as MBW is required in order to accelerate change.2362392412432442452462472482492502511. Who needs to be involved and what actions need to be taken to ensure the involvement and empowerment of women working in the meat sector? The participants noted: • There’s a need to invite women in: The meat industry workforce is made up of 36% women. Women are heavily represented in the most junior roles in the sector and under-represented at every level above junior level, with women holding just 14% of board-level director roles and 5% of chief executive roles (MBW Research 2020). Access to external networking groups such as MBW can provide the support, contacts and encouragement that women in more gender-balanced sectors might normally find within their workplace. Mentoring, and particularly formal mentoring schemes, can play an important role in helping women making key decisions and supporting them in their careers, the MBW mentoring scheme launched in 2021. • The whole supply chain needs to work together in order to attract and retain female talent. • There’s a clear link between increased gender equality and a more sustainable meat industry: Businesses with diverse workforces: o More accurately represent their customer and employee base, meaning they have better access to vital insights and perspectives o Have more diversity of thought, which drives innovation and better risk management o Have access to a wider range of leadership styles, which drives engagement and productivity o Are more profitable and have better share prices. • A global representative body such as MBW is required in order to accelerate change.2362392412432442452462472482492502512. What are the missing links in the diversity and success of the meat sector and how will better gender equality address this? The participants noted: • The meat industry needs to improve its image: Despite the existence of a wide variety of jobs in a range of environments, many people outside the sector are only aware of a narrow selection of roles, usually limited to farming and butchery. These preconceptions are compounded by an increasingly negative dialogue around the environmental and health impacts of meat production. Examples of best practice within businesses include engaging with local communities, creating internships and job placements, showcasing female role models on literature and advertising and using gender-neutral language during recruitment. Initiatives such as MBW’s One to Watch prize help showcase female talent in the sector and make role models more visible. • There’s a need to profile female role models: The meat industry has an opportunity to transform public perceptions and increase the diversity of its workforce by crafting, curating and communicating its story and making people aware of the roles and opportunities that exist. • There’s a clear link between increased gender equality and a more sustainable meat industry: Businesses with diverse workforces: o More accurately represent their customer and employee base, meaning they have better access to vital insights and perspectives o Have more diversity of thought, which drives innovation and better risk management o Have access to a wider range of leadership styles, which drives engagement and productivity o Are more profitable and have better share prices. • A global representative body such as MBW is required in order to accelerate change.2362392412432442452462472482492502513. What impact could gender equality have on producing more sustainable food consumption patterns? The participants noted: • Educating consumers should be a priority: Improving consumer education around healthy, sustainable diets could be a genuine game-changer in terms of the shift to sustainable consumption patterns. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted how disconnected consumers in many parts of the world have become from the food they eat. However, the lifestyle changes that have resulted from the pandemic also present an opportunity to address this disconnect as people are spending longer at home and may have more time to devote to cooking and eating. • Influencing women is essential if progress is to be made in this area, as women are predominantly responsible for making decisions regarding feeding their family. In order to have the maximum impact this education needs to begin in the classroom. Initiatives which link consumers to their food, for example LEAF’s Open Farm Sunday in the UK, also have a role to play in achieving this outcome. • There’s a clear link between increased gender equality and a more sustainable meat industry: Businesses with diverse workforces: o More accurately represent their customer and employee base, meaning they have better access to vital insights and perspectives o Have more diversity of thought, which drives innovation and better risk management o Have access to a wider range of leadership styles, which drives engagement and productivity o Are more profitable and have better share prices. • A global representative body such as MBW is required in order to accelerate change.2362392412432442452462472482492502514. What impact could gender equality have on the productivity of the meat sector? The participants noted: • There’s a need to break down divisions within organisations: Within food production businesses in general, and the meat industry in particular, there tends to exist a division between the workforce who are office-based and those employed in operational areas. This can be compounded by divisions along other lines such as gender and language. Better socialisation of these groups and blending different areas to remove the perceived divisions can help improve communication, ultimately increasing people’s sense of belonging within the workplace and making it a more attractive proposition to new entrants. • MBW’s global mentoring platform, which launched in 2021, will help achieve this within the meat sector by forging strong links between women in different business areas. • Those who attribute importance to physical and financial productivity targets (everyone from industry leaders and financiers to small farm owners) need to be engaged in order to appreciate that what might seem like “losses” to output (such as time invested in training and social activities) will, in the longer term, improve gender diversity and softer productivity measures in parallel. Ultimately this will lead to improved physical and financial performance. • There’s a clear link between increased gender equality and a more sustainable meat industry: Businesses with diverse workforces: o More accurately represent their customer and employee base, meaning they have better access to vital insights and perspectives o Have more diversity of thought, which drives innovation and better risk management o Have access to a wider range of leadership styles, which drives engagement and productivity o Are more profitable and have better share prices. • A global representative body such as MBW is required in order to accelerate change2362392412432442452462472482492502515. How can the meat sector drive gender equality and drive change? Participants suggested the following solutions: • Enable flexible working: Flexible workplaces are an essential enabler for creating an inclusive working environment. Women are still more likely than men to care for children or elderly parents and therefore more likely to look for workplace flexibility when considering employment opportunities. • Create working models that support those with family responsibilities: This is one of the most important actions that businesses can take to enable women to progress into leadership roles. • Map out clear career pathways: In order for the meat industry to be considered an appealing career option and ultimately attract and retain a diverse workforce, it’s vital to create visible pathways for progression across a range of career options. Stronger graduate programmes, for both university and school leavers, that give a rounded experience of various business functions, are a key part of this, as are clear pathways for internal progression. • Know the data: Understanding how many women are working at all levels within the meat sector and what the enablers and barriers are, using the MBW annual gender representation report, is essential if there is to be genuine change. • There’s a clear link between increased gender equality and a more sustainable meat industry: Businesses with diverse workforces: o More accurately represent their customer and employee base, meaning they have better access to vital insights and perspectives o Have more diversity of thought, which drives innovation and better risk management o Have access to a wider range of leadership styles, which drives engagement and productivity o Are more profitable and have better share prices. • A global representative body such as MBW is required in order to accelerate change.237239241243244245246247248249250251Participants in this Dialogue were very diverse in terms of their experience, job roles and geographical location, however there was very little opposition in their views. Many had encountered similar challenges during their careers and very similar solutions were identified by the different breakout groups.

2021-04-29 09:51:51204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/12989/70

61063191131715131011

The dialogue was organized by WWF Youth Finland. We wanted to talk mainly with young people about food system and how it shoud be changed. Participants were introduced to the summit vision and objectives. Our discussion was organized in Zoom with breakout rooms. We had an open and safe space for every to feel comfortable engaging with one another. We emphasized the importance of respect throughout all processes and chose prominent leaders to be the facilitators at each breakout room. We used the principles available for this event.The dialogue made sure to embrace the group of young people to identify and discuss the barriers for sustainable diets, as well as to develop ideas for future's sustainable diets. We highlighted openess and trust as a key elements for everyone. There was the opportunity to give input, questions and comments in the chat box, too.

NoThe dialogue was organized as a 90-minute online meeting using the Zoom platform

234239The dialogue aimed at addressing sustainable diets (Action Track 2): how diets can transition towards more nutritious foods that require fewer resources to produce in Finland. The following topics were discussed in groups: how do you see our food system in 10 years, what especially retailers and restaurants shoud do for sustainable diets and how to make sustainable diets easier to choose for young people?235239244246249251All must work together to make sustainable diets more cheaper and easier to choose. This means e.g. that retailers could choose more strictly what they are selling based on sustainability. Also restaurant should have many veggie/vegan options. School luncs have an important role for Finnish child and young people, so there should be a lot of plant-based lunches available. It should be easier to choose veggie lunch: it could be a first option for everyone. Shift to plant-based protein consumption and reduce meat consumption is really important. The voice of the young people needs to be taken more seriously on both the industry and policy level. Young people wants to understand the complexities of the food systems, and we have to make science-based knowledge easy to find. Naturally this means that we need clear political decissions for changing our diets and thes decissions have to be science-based. It should be cheap and easy to buy sustainable food. Our production system has to change, too, and we have to work together to make this change as fair as possible for everyone.236239244246249Everyone should do something: we need a systemic tranformation and there are so many actions needed. We have to change our eating habits, and one step is to change school lunch more plant-based. This should done urgently and it is a political decission.237239243244245246247249250251Who has the most important role to make a change? Some think that consumers have the most significant role: they shoud change their habits. But most of the participants thought that politics and businesses have more power and they shoud use it to make consumers choices more sustainable. The true cost of food has to be recognized and rewarded, while making healthy and sustainable food available and affordable to all.

2021-04-29 09:55:43204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/12538/192

85010353554540851052050

The Dialogue was organised through a collaboration between Dr Liz Genever (independent beef and sheep consultant) and the British Society of Animal Science to start the conversation about how research and knowledge exchange activities need to be tailored towards the opportunities and challenges for the beef sector. The debate was aiming to highlight any research and knowledge gaps; this could include failure to translate current knowledge into accessible formats or relevant information for farmers or processors to use. The session was free to attend and the links to the webinar was circulated through social media and various networks, with the aim of attracting a wide-ranging audience, including farmers, allied industry, academics, researchers and advisers. Members of the panel was asked to express their thoughts on where the UK beef industry needs to be in the next ten years. The panelists were able to highlight any relevant work they were involved in to ensure good awareness of current activity. Questions from the audience were gathered from the chat function within Zoom and directed towards the panelists by the chair.The session was organised to gather information and to share ideas about how the UK beef industry needs to prepare for the future challenges and opportunities. Within the next ten years, the supply chain will have to deal with changes to subsidies, increased focus on environmental land management, changing views on livestock production and consumption, and the need to demonstrate a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. The Dialogue brought together a panel of experts from across the supply chain - Sarah Haire (Head of Agriculture for Dunbia/Dawn Meats and leads on the UK Sustainable Beef Platform), Seth Wareing (Business Manager for Stabiliser Cattle Company [genetics]), Dr Jude Capper (livestock sustainability consultant) and Bryn Hughes (National Sheep & Beef Specialist, Wynnstay [nutrition]). The range of knowledge and expertise reflected the complexity of the dialogue. The ambition is that the session would be followed up by articles by British Society of Animal Science and the panelists as the findings complement their activity.The challenge is to get multi-stakeholder inclusivity as known networks are used. It can be challenging to attract attendees from very different background. Possibly due to the form of words that is being used in the adverts may mean it is not attractive to people from outside the sector, or the marketing approaches that are used, e.g. how to access wider networks. It is important to capture the range of dialogues that can be happening in an online meeting, as not all questions can be asked.

NoDue to the scale of the event, the attendees were asked to share their thoughts and questions via the chat function (of Zoom). Over an hour was allocated to the panel debating the questions. It was run as a webinar.

234240244250It was aiming to highlight knowledge and research gaps for the UK beef industry. The ambition of this was to become aware of the right skills and knowledge the sector needed to deal with the opportunities and challenges. One area that is developing in the UK is the role of the farmer in food production while enhancing the environment and health health. Ruminants have an important role in maintaining landscapes through grazed areas, utilising human non-edible products, including by-products from human food production, and production on nutrient dense products, including meat and milk. Due to the multi-functional role of ruminants it became clear that it was complex problem. It was highlighted that focusing on a single interest was not helpful as it is likely it would have unintentional consequences.235240242244248250Overall the UK beef industry needs to develop an industry and production systems that we are proud of. A clear narrative of why people can continue to eat beef, for example, efficient beef production that is socially, environmental and economic sustainable needs to be developed. There is a need to further highlight the benefits for human nutrition. The role of grass, forage and co-products (and lack of soya) within beef supply chains needs to be highlighted. All members of the supply chain have a responsibility to engage with consumers. This is alongside a focus on consistent products to consumers keep choosing beef. There needs to be a focus on how tweaks to the beef production system – better health, better genetics, better grazing, better feeding – as they can improve productivity. We need to recognise that we are dealing with complex biological systems and need tools to help deal with unintended consequences of single topic decision. Slaughter age reduction is a clear target for the industry from a profitability and greenhouse gas emission perspective. There needs to be continual focus on selecting animals on feed conversion efficiency in breeds where those traits are available, and encourage other breeds to start collecting the data. The influence of dairy industry will increase as use of sexed semen means that more beef x animals will be available, with the advantage of these systems being more integrated. There could be opportunities to develop a range of blueprints to represent the most common systems, including mixed farming systems and dairy beef systems.236240243248250We need to think about how to engage with the “emotional” side of decision making on farm, and provision of technical knowledge is not good enough any more as it doesn’t drive behaviour change. Work is needed to develop the support network around beef farmers to help support their decisions. We need a clear plan of what additional skills beef farmers need to face the new challenges, e.g. measuring biodiversity, business skills, marketing and communications.236243The role of data and how it can drive business decisions needs to have a practical focus, as it is not just about collection, it is about translation and focussing efforts on the ones that make the biggest difference. There has been a signficant investment by the government to get "kit" onto farms, but without additional skills and support about the questions that are need asking, the investment is never going to be fully realised.2372432501) The need to reduce beef consumption vs. making better decisions 2) The level of details that need to be supplied to consumers on their production systems 3) How to encourage farmers to engage with data without the risk of data fatigue

2021-04-29 17:37:13204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/10225/79

1900211144698610402590041451322624991214642020101726231603002798052

El Comité Consultivo de la Integración Económica -CCIE-, es la entidad empresarial más grande de la región, conformada por 17 Federaciones, alrededor de 95 Cámaras y Asociaciones empresariales y más de 50 mil empresarios. Dada la importancia de los temas que se abordarán en la Cumbre de los Sistemas Alimentarios organizado por la Organización de Naciones Unidas y programada para el mes de septiembre de este año, por primera vez como sector privado organizado, nos hemos involucrado en la realización de diálogos regionales con la participación de representantes de los principales organismos centroamericanos, los gobiernos de los países Centroamericanos, la sociedad civil, y los distintos grupos de interés.Promover la confianza Reconocer la complejidad Ser respetuosos Adoptar un enfoque inclusivo de múltiples grupos de interésEs muy importante convocar a tiempo, esto nos permite darle la divulgación adecuada y contar con una buena participación que sea inclusiva. Asimismo, la preparación de los facilitadores es esencial ya que por medio de ellos recabaremos los insumos adecuados. Si la actividad es virtual es necesario contar con una buena logística, una plataforma segura, un buen equipo para que el evento se desarrolle con normalidad.

Yes

234238239240241242243245246247248249A) TEMA PRINCIPAL Los países centroamericanos forman parte de un proceso de integración. Este proceso sirve como una plataforma para potenciar las acciones en favor del desarrollo de cada uno de los países de la región. Se buscó abordar la Cumbre sobre Sistemas Alimentarios desde la dimensión centroamericana para que las ideas nacionales sean replicadas a nivel regional. De esta manera, soluciones propuestas pueden llegar a ser implementadas a una mayor escala. Comité Consultivo de la Integración Económica -CCIE- con el apoyo del Instituto Interamericano de Cooperación para la Agricultura -IICA-, Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Alimentación y la Agricultura -FAO-, Fondo Internacional de Desarrollo Agrícola, -FIDA-, Secretaria de la Integración Económica Centroamericana -SIECA-, CEMPROMYPE y la Secretaría del Consejo Agropecuario Centroamericano, con el objeto de visibilizar el proceso de la Cumbre, así como intercambiar información sobre las acciones que las diferentes instituciones, llevaremos a cabo el "Lanzamiento: Cumbre de los Sistemas Alimentarios 2021: una mirada desde la visión de la integración regional". Con el objeto de impulsar una participación efectiva y oportuna de la región centroamericana en el proceso de preparación de la Cumbre sobre Sistemas Alimentarios, prevista a realizarse en septiembre de 2021. El tema principal del diálogo fue la exposición de los esfuerzos que los órganos de integración centroamericana y el sector privado de Centroamérica están realizando en favor de la sostenibilidad y los sistemas alimentarios de la región, así como cuál será su impulso para trabajar de manera conjunta para alcanzar las metas a las que la Cumbre nos está retando el día de hoy. El diálogo fue dividido en tres temas principales: 1. Crecimiento económico inclusivo. Se abordó cómo se podría mejorar el acceso a mercados internacionales y hacer crecer los mercados internos. También se exploró el papel de la infraestructura logística y la conectividad para mejorar el acceso a alimentos, la producción sostenible y la calidad de vida de los centroamericanos. El objetivo fue compartir soluciones transformadoras para incrementar el impacto de los sistemas alimentarios en la región. 2. Agricultura sostenible. Se intercambió información sobre los retos en materia de cambio climático para la producción de alimentos en Centroamérica. El objetivo fue plantear soluciones para mejorar el acceso a alimentos a nivel mundial y compartir qué soluciones transformadoras podrían acelerar la producción sostenible de alimentos. 3. Desarrollo rural y ODS. En este tema se buscó en primer lugar conversar sobre las causas que están provocando la emigración de centroamericanos y sobre los motivos que están limitando el desarrollo, particularmente de las áreas rurales. De igual manera, se discutió sobre las oportunidades de los gobiernos, el sector privado y la sociedad civil para contribuir con la mejora de la calidad de vida de los centroamericanos. El objetivo fue dialogar sobre posibles soluciones para mejorar la calidad de vida del área rural en la región.235238239240241242245246248249B) PRINCIPALES HALLAZGOS: El lanzamiento regional surge con el deseo de alcanzar las metas de los ODS2030 y generar desarrollo inclusivo sin que nadie quede atrás. Tal y como señala la Organización de Naciones Unidas, es necesario avanzar en una visión compartida en donde la articulación de propuestas entre el sector público y privado es clave. El CCIE integra a las federaciones de los distintos actores de las cadenas de valor que juegan algún rol dentro del concepto de los sistemas alimentarios. Con esa visión, es que vemos sumamente importante que abordemos el proceso preparatorio con dos perspectivas muy claras y coherentes entre sí: • La dimensión regional, “la centroamericana”, bajo el proceso de integración, que se complementa a su vez con las acciones que se desarrollan a nivel de cada país. Ya que unidos como región somos más fuertes; y, • La “alianza público – privada”, en la que se articulan las competencias y capacidades de los Estados y sus Sectores Productivos. El éxito de la Cumbre dependerá de una preparación sólida, inclusiva y, sobre todo, compartida, basada en las mejores evidencias, ideas y compromisos de todo el mundo. Que se espera como Región Centroamericana en la Cumbre de los Sistemas Alimentarios 2021: 1. Elevar dramáticamente el discurso público sobre la importancia de los sistemas alimentarios y qué hacer para que el público trabaje por la gente y el planeta. 2. Acción relevante con resultados medibles que faciliten alcanzar los ODS2030. Esto incluye resaltar soluciones existentes, celebrar y reconocer líderes en los sistemas de transformación alimentaria, así como un llamado a nuevas acciones de todos los sectores. 3. Declaración de alto nivel y llamado a la acción desarrollado a través de un proceso con el apoyo de los Estados miembro y otros actores para mejorar la capacidad de sus sistemas alimentarios para alcanzar los ODS. Es por ello, que estamos sumamente entusiasmados con este evento que se llevó a cabo, el cual está perfectamente alineado con la naturaleza del CCIE:  Nos presenta como una entidad regional del Sector Productivo, creada por los instrumentos de la integración, y,  Nos permite buscar la articulación de ideas y acciones con la visión y esfuerzos institucionales de otros organismos regionales y autoridades de Gobierno, bajo el amparo de la integración centroamericana. El CCIE está convocando varios diálogos regionales para promover un diálogo abierto a todos los actores que nos permita presentar una visión compartida desde la región de Centro América para el proceso de preparación de la Cumbre de Sistemas Alimentarios. Con el propósito de articular esa visión compartida público-privada forman parte de este lanzamiento los representantes de IICA, SICA, SIECA, CAC, CEMPROMYPE, FAO, FIDA y INTEGRARSE.236238241245248249Debate #1: CRECIMIENTO ECONÓMICO INCLUSIVO: Se propuso la adopción de tecnologías de cara a la cuarta revolución industrial. Es necesario crear capacidades, no solo en los productores sino en los que brindan apoyo al sector privado. Se comentó sobre la necesidad de la digitalización para poder adaptarse a esta nueva era virtual. Se comentó sobre la idea de las “aldeas digitales”, las cuales requieren una gran integración a nivel subregional con las municipalidades. Se enfatizó en la importancia de incrementar el acceso a infraestructura tecnológica, además de crear capacidades para tener una buena preparación en materia tecnológica. El comercio electrónico también se mencionó como una herramienta disruptiva importante que podría permitir el acceso de productos centroamericanos a mercados emergentes. El papel del Estado fue otro de los temas resaltados en la mesa de diálogo. Se ve la oportunidad de modernizar los sistemas regulatorios, buscando homologar estándares y normativa a nivel regional, lo que podría representar una disminución en los costos de transacción. La automatización de procesos (ya utilizada para los registros sanitarios para alimentos y bebidas) fue mencionada como una buena práctica que hay en Centroamérica. Esta práctica podría ser expandida a nuevos horizontes. Por otra parte, se presentó la necesidad de crear instrumentos financieros acorde a las nuevas necesidades del sector privado. Los fondos de garantía se consideran como una experiencia positiva en otras regiones del mundo. Por último, se destacó la importancia de fortalecer los encadenamientos productivos en la región, representando una propuesta para aumentar la formalidad en la economía centroamericana. Existe una gran área de oportunidad para involucrar a las pequeñas y medianas empresas en las cadenas de valor regionales. En ese sentido, se considera importante el aprovechamiento de los tratados de libre comercio, siendo las alianzas público-privadas una clave para mejorar las condiciones en cuanto a infraestructura y movilidad para facilitar el traslado de las mercancías.236239240241242243244248251Debate #2: AGRICULTURA SOSTENIBLE: Se resaltó la vulnerabilidad de Centroamérica al cambio climático. Los fenómenos de El Niño y La Niña y la temporada de huracanes son ejemplos de lo vulnerable que es la región. Es un reto la adaptación, la mitigación de los efectos del cambio climático, y la necesidad de tener más y mejores prácticas sostenibles en la producción de alimentos. Existe una gran necesidad de mejorar la gestión de los recursos como el agua. El intercambio de buenas prácticas entre los países de la región tiene un gran potencial que aún no se está aprovechando al máximo. Como solución a los retos que presenta el cambio climático, el uso de nuevas tecnologías es importante para poder implementar mejores técnicas de cultivo. Se mencionó como un caso de éxito el lavado en seco de la caña de azúcar para una mejor gestión del agua. También se comentó sobre la posibilidad de utilizar software especializado y drones para el control de cultivos. Para poder aprovechar al máximo estas herramientas tecnológicas, es necesario también aumentar el acceso a internet en las áreas rurales. La creación de sistemas de alerta temprana fue otra solución presentada como una opción para mitigar los efectos del cambio climático. De igual manera, se considera que existe una gran área de oportunidad en diseñar programas para pequeños agricultores que permitan aumentar los rendimientos de los cultivos. La inclusión de grupos marginados fue otro de los retos expuestos para la agricultura sostenible. La incorporación de los jóvenes al mercado laboral representa otro reto importante para la región. Por esta problemática, se expuso la necesidad de implementar nuevas técnicas de extensión rural para preparar a la juventud ante los retos globales. El desarrollo de sistemas agroforestales y sistemas de riego eficientes también fueron discutidos como soluciones transformadoras, junto con la adopción de tecnologías limpias y la mejora de capacidades para el aprovechamiento de desechos. Se hizo énfasis en la importancia de la información climática para la toma de decisiones. Tener acceso a más información, sumado a buena investigación y desarrollo, reforzando la planificación estratégica, fue expuesta como otra solución transformadora.236238239241247249Debate #2: DESARROLLO RURAL Y ODS En la discusión se abordaron 10 de los 17 Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible. Se reconoció la necesidad de hacer habitables las zonas rurales. Para ello, es importante plantear iniciativas de desarrollo integral que permitan mitigar problemas como la emigración; reducir la desnutrición crónica infantil; y mejorar la situación de acceso a agua y saneamiento. Se comentó sobre la importancia de que los pequeños productores pasen de tener únicamente una agricultura de subsistencia y de venta de excedentes, a tener procesos de producción mucho más amplios. Más adelante, se mencionó la necesidad de brindarles apoyos a estos pequeños productores para que puedan transformar su estructura productiva e incorporarse a los mercados locales. Se reiteró la importancia de procurar el acceso a servicios esenciales. Es clave mejorar el acceso y la calidad de la educación y los servicios de salud, como base fundamental para el desarrollo. La educación fue resaltada como una base para transformar los sistemas alimentarios. En ese sentido, es necesario transformar los modelos educativos para que los centroamericanos puedan comprender mejor los procesos productivos. Se destacó sobre cómo la ausencia de una articulación de actores no permite superar los desafíos que la región centroamericana enfrenta. Por ello, se considera importante abordar los temas de desarrollo rural desde una visión más integral, la cual debería dar como resultado una mejor formación, acceso a servicios básicos y nuevos empleos. En el caso de los programas de los gobiernos destinados a la seguridad alimentaria, se discutió sobre la importancia de que pasen a ser únicamente asistenciales a ser iniciativas de apoyo a la competitividad de los productores. Lo que se necesita son modelos de desarrollo que favorezcan que las áreas rurales sean cada vez más competitivas.237No se tuvieron áreas de divergencia

2021-04-30 08:37:16204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/14604/2728364067687698111112134135153161170171189193201202

1750985025201057001455115545515105155124

We sought to create an open forum for information sharing, exploration of ideas, and discussion about the role of traditional vegetables in supporting nutrition-sensitive agriculture in Africa. We offered participants multiple ways to engage with each other in-person and online: • 175 in-person participants; 312 registered ZOOM participants; and another 200 people followed through the event app. • More than 10,000 people viewed the summit in live Facebook feeds. Since this form only allows reporting on one mode, the attendance numbers in this feedback form reflect the in-person participants. During the event, two panel discussions brought forward the concerns and ideas of specific stakeholder groups: 1) A Young Entrepreneurs panel shed light on the bottlenecks young people face when attempting to establish agricultural enterprises based on traditional vegetables. Limited access to credit emerged as a serious constraint -- and the youth challenged representatives of financial institutions, who were present in the room -- to propose solutions. 2) A panel with High-level Decisionmakers focused on policies to enhance the uptake of traditional crops and all vegetables.ACT WITH URGENCY Twitter hashtag #PowerOnYourPlate tracks a lively social media discussion among stakeholders that continues today. COMMIT TO THE SUMMIT Participants made valuable connections during the event and are building networks to promote and utilize traditional vegetables to improve diets and local economies in Africa. BE RESPECTFUL All participants had opportunities to offer comments online and in-person. Questions that could not be answered immediately were followed up later in the event or shortly after it concluded. RECOGNIZE COMPLEXITY To explore the depth and breadth of traditional vegetables in Africa, summit participants shared 64 presentations covering six subject areas: -- Diversity and Breeding -- Seed Systems, Access, and Quality -- Nutrition -- Food Environments -- Value Chains and Scaling -- Beyond Food EMBRACE MULTI-STAKEHOLDER INCLUSIVITY Vegetable producers, entrepreneurs, students, researchers, government and NGO representatives from 41 countries (including 20 African countries) participated in the event. African countries represented: Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameron, Eswatini, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, South Africa, South Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe COMPLEMENT THE WORK OF OTHERS By sharing the latest research on traditional vegetables, participants can inform existing processes and initiatives, and set out new paths to integrate these crops into more resilient and robust food systems. BUILD TRUST In light of COVID-19, in-person participants took care to wear masks, wash hands, and respect physical distance at the venue.

NoAlthough this event took a different approach to solicit opinions and ideas, we feel it followed the spirit of the summit dialogue principles. The "hybrid" method of hosting a conference provided many more people with a platform to share their views and be heard. Participants had opportunities to interact and to exchange ideas and opinions both at the venue and online. Questions that could not be answered immediately were followed up later in the event or shortly after it concluded. Videos of all speakers are available online.

234238243244249251This event aimed to gather knowledge and perspectives to raise awareness and examine prospects for diversifying African diets and economies with traditional vegetables. Africa is home to a large number of plant species with the potential to invigorate the continent’s horticultural value chain — yet whether consumed as nutritious food or used as the foundation for natural health products, these traditional vegetables remain untapped and underutilized. From an estimated 6,400 species of useful indigenous plants, about 300 are traditional vegetables, and about 126 species are widely known and used throughout the continent. Traditional vegetables support nutrition-sensitive agriculture under climate change because they generally are more nutrient-dense than most commercial vegetable crops, have lower water requirements, are adapted to poor quality soils, and have higher resistance to pests and diseases. Traditional vegetables are endangered by displacement with high-energy staple crops, the fact that most traditional vegetables are not registered in national catalogs, lack of promotion and support for their use, lack of human resources capacity focusing on traditional vegetables, and lack of conservation infrastructure. Because of their relatively low commercial value, little research investment has been made for traditional vegetables; crop improvements have not been fully explored and genetic resources are poorly conserved. A few African traditional vegetables have become widely adopted across the continent. African eggplant and okra are now grown on large areas and improved varieties are successfully commercialized. Research and breeding can convert more underutilized traditional vegetables into commercially successful crops. Businesses and supportive government policy can unlock the potential of traditional vegetables to create employment and generate income, especially for women and youth. Diversifying diets and farming systems with these crops will strengthen resilience to a changing climate.235238243244245249251To realize the potential of traditional vegetables in Africa, there is a need to work simultaneously on the “Three Ps”: pulling demand, pushing supply, and providing enabling policy and governance. In presentations and panel discussions, Power on Your Plate participants called for action: for increased investment, regional R&D programs, and policies to promote traditional vegetables at national and regional levels and fully integrate traditional vegetables into Africa’s food systems. Ideas raised are listed in the discussion topics below.236238243244248251PUSH (supply side) Actions for research institutions and governments: -- Foster innovative approaches to expand the availability and affordability of traditional African vegetables. -- Strengthen formal and informal seed systems. -- Introduce ‘green’ agricultural practices to guarantee food safety. -- Diversify the traditional vegetable species grown and marketed. -- Increase yields and extend growing seasons in a sustainable manner. -- Reduce postharvest losses by introducing processing technology, shorter supply chains and appropriate market storage space for vegetable vendors.236238243244245248251PULL (demand side) Actions for farmers and traders, input dealers, credit providers, marketers, and media: -- Foster innovative approaches to stimulate the acceptability and accessibility of traditional vegetables as part of a healthy diet. -- Establish trust and traceability relationships. -- Shorten the connection lines between producers and consumers to address food safety concerns. -- Create interest in traditional vegetables through information campaigns emphasizing taste, cultural value and ease of preparation as well as nutritional, health and environmental benefits. -- Banks should aim to commit a significant portion of their loan books to regenerative agriculture. -- Extend loan repayment periods for young farmers who may not own land. -- Create a revolving fund for traditional vegetable producers. -- Apply consumer trends in food consumption such as convenience and health to traditional crops. -- Create awareness of the benefits of using quality seed among farmers. -- Train farmers in quality traditional vegetable seed production/processing/marketing. -- Use social media marketing for traditional vegetables. -- Establish Vegetable Business Hubs to provide crop management knowledge and connect producers with traders, processors, input and credit vendors. -- Show young people opportunities in production and value addition through on-farm demonstrations.236238243246249POLICY (governance) Actions for local, regional and national governments: -- Promote traditional vegetables within local, national and regional initiatives to reduce malnutrition, create employment opportunities, and ensure crucial buy-in from policy- and decision-makers. -- Public procurement of traditional vegetables for school feeding programs, hospitals, military and other institutional clients can increase demand, develop markets for farmers, and address several of the Sustainable Development Goals (SGDs 1, 2, 3, 13 and 15). -- Select and certify priority traditional vegetables to incorporate into national policies. -- Adjust land tenure practices to address access issues for women and young people. -- Provide traditional vegetable seed for vulnerable refugees living in camps.236238243244RESEARCH Actions for agricultural research institutions; government agriculture and health ministries; nongovernmental organizations: -- Collect and protect traditional crops and their wild relatives in genebanks to safeguard diversity. -- Collect and share traditional knowledge about these crops. -- Conduct more regional research on traditional crops. -- Breed climate-smart crops. -- Identify local favorites that best fit local agro-ecosystems and diets. -- Dedicate a much greater proportion of national, regional and global R&D efforts to nutritious food, in particular traditional vegetables.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/power-on-your-plate-one-page-flyer-wrap-up_A4-2.pdfhttps://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWk7s17hRMk4Y4Pag1XV4Bghttps://worldveg.tind.io/record/73997/files/Poweronyourplate_Abstracts.pdf

2021-04-30 10:13:45204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/14771/87

15510782111112211231182

As we have Covid restrictions we may not be able to get more people on board and we tried to organize the Dialogue so that the Principles were incorporated, reinforced and enhanced to our maximum level of engagementThe dialogues reflected most of the aspects of the principles laid down and we had taken special care in ensuring the same at these timesNo as per our experience we cannot copy one with another as every one struggling during this COVID and the challenges are different for every one

Yes

234239240242244247248249The dialogue where concentrated on sustainable patterns and nature positive production. we discussed various shocks and after shocks and stress which we humans create as on the food systems line and what we can do to reduce the same.235238239240242244246247248249251It is decided that we will explore new ways to safe guard our food systems and we need to use the best possible levels that we can adopt to provide better food to all.236238244246247248249As we all know every one does not have access to safe and nutritious food so we need to find ways to do so236240244246247248We discussed about positive food production and it needs and challenges and how to over come the same236242244246247248249250251Our food systems have lot of challenges and vulnerabilities , shocks and stress and we need to over come the same to provide and bring positive change to the food systems. Our Dialogue was concentrated on this aspect that we discussed elaborately237239244246247248249We have discussed about the vulnerabilities of our food systems and discussed what we can do

2021-04-30 21:14:19204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/12151/135203

175192512177231751021717121

The Summit dialogue was organized and convened in a physical informal community gathering bringing together multiple stakeholders from the indigenous people in coastal communities working across the food system from production to consumption including the fishermen. They are inclusive and strive to showcase as many voices as possible, capturing diverse cultural, professional and gender specific perspectives. We also recognized the utmost urgency of sustained and meaningful action at all levels to reach the respective 2030 Sustainable Development Goals involving action tracks 1,2,3,4,5 in our discussions. With this urgency mindset, the Dialogues are organized as contributions to the Food Systems Summit and to the elaboration of pathways to food systems transformation contributing to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Finally, the participants committed to promote and contribute to the vision, objectives and the final outcomes of the Food Systems Summit with their indigenous knowledge, skills and experiences.The indigenous people in the coastal communities are looking forward to fostering new engagements and partnerships that will stimulate the emergence of innovations and ways to advance collectively and creatively towards the future of agriculture while embracing the entire scope of opinions erupting from other stakeholders in the food system. The dialogue strategically focused on developing and scaling up indigenous knowledge and capacities peculiar to the culture and traditions of the indigenous people to inform decision makings, policy and governance at all levels for a sustainable food system. The participants were urged to give their audience for effective collaboration with multiple stakeholders in fostering the enabling environment that will replicate and scale up community actions that requires immediate take off.My advice for other Dialogue Convenors about appreciating the Principles of Engagement is as follows: a) For you to have a robust and rich conversations, you should involve diverse stakeholders as participants. If peculiar to a target group like the indigenous people, don't wait for them to have internet connections or be tech savvy before involving them to take a seat at the table for a conversation in matters that affects their everyday life, take the discussion to where they are to achieve a maximum and best result. b) Don't be discouraged or overwhelmed by the complexity and tediousness of such an informal gathering or bother about the indigenous people who are not always too open nor receptive to adoption of any innovation or ideas contrary to their culture, tradition or social norm. They may neither appreciate nor value what you are doing for them by giving them a voice in the global community, still keep at what you are doing with resilient and tenacity knowing that you are doing a service to humanity.

NoAs stated previously, the Summit dialogue was organized and convened in a physical informal community gathering bringing together multiple stakeholders from the indigenous people in coastal communities working across the food system from production to consumption. This independent dialogue was sponsored by Maklumy Technology Services Limited also brought together a diverse range of indigenous peoples, smallholder farmers and fishermen to discuss the summit’s Action Tracks 1, 2, 3, 4,5. The point of divergence occurred in this manner in the course of organizing the Dialogue, on the day assigned that it was going to be convened, we noticed a gender disparity caused by tradition and culture in the coastal communities on arrival. The Dialogue date coincided with the community fishing day; they are in their fishing season. All the men and youth were out in the thick forests leaving only the women at home. This calls for urgent action for advocacy, awareness creation and sensitization on gender equality and inclusion of the indigenous women as stakeholders for a sustainable food system. In the course of the Dialogue also, all voices were heard, the participants complained that prior before now, the perennial flooding that occur in their coastal communities usually happens around August till October every year. But in this year 2021, it rained for three consecutive days non-stop between 10th and 12th of April and all their cultivated farmlands were washed away by floods. When this kind of thing happens, they don’t get any form of help or intervention from anywhere, majority of the farmers cannot afford to buy seeds and other farm inputs to replant or cultivate back their farms, causing greater danger to food insecurity and on their livelihoods. We took the remaining part of the discussions to the fishermen where they are carrying out their activities and captured them in pictures as shared in the official feedback form.

234238239240241242243244245248249251Our Dialogue focused on identification of ways to reduce the risk of food production caused by climate crisis and the engagement of indigenous people’s knowledge and empowerment of marginalized and vulnerable people to create a sustainable food system. Indigenous people and smallholder farmers understand the environmental, climate, social, economic, and health impacts of our complex food systems. Participants suggested that to reduce the risk of food production caused by climate crisis, we need to diversify and sustain production strategies that is customized to our geolocations, cultures and different variety of crops. In shaping the transformation of food systems, indigenous peoples and smallholder farmers are to be given a place at the table with other key stakeholders to scale up their indigenous knowledge as recommendations are being developed and implemented. On the conservation of our food heritage: Challenges posed by the extinction of our various food varieties and the way forward and challenges to food systems sustainability caused by the impact of climate change on our environment in the coastal communities. The participants robustly discussed on the conservation of food heritage and ensuring food security for ecologically vulnerable and socially marginalized coastal communities of indigenous farmers and fishermen, concluded as follows: i) Customize technology innovations and solutions to fit into indigenous farmers geography and climate as a strategy for boosting nature positive production. ii) Also, detection of warnings and early or late planting of different crops to mitigate against floods, droughts and other threats/natural disasters building resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and threats. While exploring indigenous people and small-scale fishermen knowledge and ideas in ensuring the long-term viability of our fish stocks and aquatics for sustainable food systems and indigenous people’s knowledge on sustainable management of our forests to protect, restore and promote sustainable use of our territorial ecosystems. Participants acknowledged that provision of irrigation facilities and small dams using our water-bodies littered all over the place to increase production capacity of smallholder farmers for food security will create a sustainable food system. Discussing the exploration of indigenous people’s knowledge, skills and experiences to halt biodiversity loss and create abundance of food varieties, it was noted that equipping the indigenous people with the technical know-how to increase productivity both in crop production and fishing in wild rivers and provision of quality and improved seed varieties on our alluvial soils to increase crop yields is of utmost importance to ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all. Provision of storage facilities and value-addition through processing to encourage the availability and affordability of food all year round; post-harvest handling and management to curb food loss, glut and wastage will also create a tremendous shift to sustainable consumption patterns. Provision of access roads to farm locations for easy off-take of produce to where they are needed was also mentioned. Access to finance and other project interventions by indigenous people in the disadvantaged and underserved communities. Women and youth participants also clamored to be engaged not only as producers but also as food processors; provision of localized support for them on access to funding and digital financial inclusion for processing and marketing will promote equitable livelihoods.235238239240241242243244245248249251After an interactive and robust discussions with our indigenous people, the following conclusions emerged from our Dialogue: 1. We need to scale up indigenous knowledge and promote generational knowledge transfer that is rapidly dying out due to the pressures of food security and urban rural migration through adequate collaboration and partnerships with stakeholders at the national, state, local government levels, civil society organizations and the private sector. 2. To build indigenous people’s skills with sustainable technology and digital tools that will integrate trainings, research and service to community to close the gender gap and enhance sustainable food systems. 3. Indigenous people are closer to nature and the importance of indigenous knowledge cannot be overemphasized because traditional farming practices are more ecologically sensitive, nature friendly and sustainable. We suggested linking grassroots organizations in need of funding with financial/donor institutions that are looking to finance green initiatives to consolidate more on the diversification of our biodiversity and enhance sustainable food systems. 4. Research institutions, Universities, civil society organizations and private sectors should be made to provide capacity building training and agricultural technologies solutions to these indigenous people in the socially and economically disadvantaged communities. We shouldn't leave it for the government alone. 5. To be mainstreamed in our policy making that agriculture should be seen as a business and not just a culture that can provide financial as well as ecological returns to our households, community and the planet. 6. There is an urgent call to action to empower the indigenous women and youth from the disadvantaged and underserved coastal communities to mobilize and become the core of generational knowledge transfer facilitating development that spreads from not just farmer to farmer but also to the children in their households and also the men in their lives. 7. It is of utmost importance to carve out tailor-made solutions not just based on research alone but according to farmers needs and provide market access and linkages, mobilizing resources and harnessing partnerships for greater leverage, innovation, and impact on nature, people, livelihoods and our ecosystems.2362382392402412422432442452482492511. Ecosystem Restoration through the planting of crops with different characteristics together in one place will recover lost food heritages and provide abundance of different food varieties. 2. There will be restoration and recovery of various fish stocks, other aquatics in our wild rivers and trees in the forests. 3. Increase in income and improved livelihoods of indigenous people, smallholder farmers and fishermen households. 4. Community resilience can be achieved through community enterprise and infrastructural development.237238239241242244248251On the day the dialogue was to be convened, we noticed a gender disparity caused by tradition and culture in the coastal communities on arrival. The dialogue date coincided with the community fishing day; they are in their fishing season. All the men and youth were out in the thick forests leaving only the women at home. This calls for advocacy, awareness creation and sensitization on gender equality and inclusion of the indigenous women for a sustainable food system. In the course of the dialogue, the participants complained that prior before now, the perennial flooding that occur in their coastal communities usually happens around August till October every year. But in this year 2021, it rained for three consecutive days non-stop between 10th and 12th of April and all their cultivated farmlands were washed away by floods. When this kind of thing happens, they don’t get any form of help or intervention from anywhere, majority of the farmers cannot afford to buy seeds and other farm inputs to replant or cultivate back their farms, causing greater danger to food insecurity and on their livelihoods. We took the remaining part of the discussions to the fishermen where they are carrying out their activities and captured them in pictures as shared in the official feedback form.

2021-04-30 22:12:31204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/6646/2444141

172868538134165711979344413111483

The principles were considered throughout the Dialogue: from design to implementation. When talking about the need to transform food systems, the review of the role of women in them can never be left out and therefore this Dialogue was raised around the imperative need to act urgently and generate reflections that inspire Summit commitments. Likewise, when convening multiple interest groups, we encountered diverse contexts and cultures, so moderating the working groups with respect was essential for everyone to feel comfortable and confident to raise their voices.On one hand, for the election of the moderators, it was considered that they were people who knew how to take care of and reflect the principles in each working group. This conscious choice allows us to ensure that the principles were reflected during the dialogues. In addition, it should be noted that the moderators and note-takers had different backgrounds and came from different agencies of the United Nations, which favored diversity and plurality. On the other hand, to increase trust within the working groups, digital platforms were implemented through which the participants could share their ideas and analyze, together with the moderator, the coincidences and divergences. This allowed the generation of trust, favoring the integration of different groups and facilitating discussion.

Yes

234238239240241242247249251The transformation of food systems is a political, economic and environmental issue, but above all it is a question of gender equality. The stark inequalities experienced by women and girls are both a cause and a result of unsustainable food systems, unfair access to food, consumption and production. Addressing gender injustice and truly empowering women is not only a fundamental prerequisite for transforming food systems, but also a goal in itself. Shaping food systems so that they are conducive to gender equality requires a combination of improved knowledge, sound policies, regulations and investments throughout the production and consumption process. We need to reframe how we view women and food systems from mainly focusing on the role of women as producers and consumers to thinking about how food and agricultural systems contribute or can contribute to the process of empowering women and how these systems can create an environment conducive to the equal exercise of women's rights. There is also need for a special attention on climate change, urging us to observe “how women's responses to climate change strengthen the resilience of food systems” and “how women can be empowered to lead the development of climate-resilient food and agriculture systems”. A fair, transformative and gender equitable food system can be defined as one that allows countries, communities, households, and men and women, to have what is necessary to produce enough food and have the access to it, for their families and populations through sustainable, environmentally sound and climate resilient practices that favour gender equity and equality. As part of the preparations for the Food Systems Summit, we proposed a regional gender dialogue to engage with governments and the regional integration mechanisms, civil society organizations, indigenous and Afro-descendant peoples, academia, the private sector and agencies of the United Nations System, to discuss the challenges and pathways for the development of a gender just, transformative and equitable food system that allows the full exercise of the rights and empowerment of women in Latin America and the Caribbean. Specifically, the regional dialogue on gender and food systems in Latin America and the Caribbean has identified: (i) a set of solutions and commitments for gender equality in food systems (ii) a regional position on what commitments are needed to achieve gender equality in food systems for the UN Food Systems Summit. The discussions were organized into 5 working groups on each of the action tracks of the Food Systems Summit. Also, there was a sixth English-speaking working group, which worked the 5 action tracks. Attendees were invited to register and select the action track in which they wish to participate. Each group has identified 3 concrete actions/solutions in favor of gender equality and the empowerment of women in the food systems of the region. Each working group had a moderator and a note taker. At the end of the discussion, the three game changing solutions of each group were presented in the screen for general comments.235238239240241242247249251The main finding of the Regional Dialogue was the need to work with gender transformative, intersectional and intersectoral approach, in all sectors. In this way, it was agreed that to achieve food and nutrition security and to contribute to the sustainable development it is fundamental to pay attention to women’s rights (SDG 5).236238247249251#1 For Action Track 1 it was concluded that the following were the key solutions: Access to safe and nutritious food Incorporate the gender approach in regulations, policies, and productive and food security programs. Promote community education initiatives in nutritional matters, with cultural relevance and co- responsibility between women and men. Strengthen specific institutions such as women's ministries and policies for the promotion of production for women.236239247249251#2 For Action Track 2 it was concluded that the following were the key solutions: Change in consumption patterns Make visible the ancestral knowledge and knowledge of rural, indigenous, and Afro-descendant women on food and agrobiodiversity. Promote the participation of consumer organizations to strengthen education and access to information on healthy eating.236240247249251#3 For Action Track 3 it was concluded that the following were the key solutions: Positive production for nature Incorporate the gender approach in sustainable agricultural policies and make it possible through action plans and the articulation of participatory and multisectoral platforms. Promote the association and organization of women producers, from an intercultural perspective. Introduce clear measures so that women have better access to financing, technology, information, and training.236241247249251#4 For Action Track 4 it was concluded that the following were the key solutions: Resilience in adverse situations Ensure equitable access for women to credit and insurance. Mobilize social protection and care policies for rural women with gender-sensitive budgets, allocating resources and coordinating initiatives in the territories. Increase the availability of information that allows better analysis of difficulties, gaps and roles of women in food systems.236242247249251#5 For Action Track 5 it was concluded that the following were the key solutions: Equitable livelihoods and redistribution of value Articulate actions against gender-based violence in rural areas, such as physical, economic and patrimonial violence. Promote legislative and parliamentary actions for gender parity and the incorporation of an intercultural perspective in decision-making. Promote the recognition of rural women leaders, as well as grassroots organizations and movements of indigenous and Afro-descendant women. Rethink the mechanisms of social protection and care to achieve a shared responsibility between men and women. Establish funds and financing mechanisms to make these proposals possible.237238239240241242247249251The main area of divergence was related to how to understand the role of women in food systems. Some people posed a traditional role for women, for example: educating women so that they feed other people well. That is, planning a nutritional education so that women make good decisions, taking 100% responsibility for their reality and the reality of their family, when the conditions in which they daily live do not allow them. On the other hand, some people brought a more transformative view of the role of women in food systems.

2021-04-30 23:35:12205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/11966/120

117004040370634957221520441824154291116

This first National Dialogue was organized being supported by the already existing inter-sectorial collaboration platform named GISAMAC (Health, Food, Environment and Competitiveness Inter-secretariat Group, in Spanish Grupo Intersectorial de Salud, Alimentación y Competitividad). This platform is composed by the following Ministries: Environment, Health, Social Development, Agriculture and Ecomic Affairs. The essence of this platform is to complement the work across sectors to address complex problems. The Dialogue also served as GISAMAC’s first 2021 virtual gathering, which communicated the commitment that the National Convenor has with connecting policy priorities in the country with the process of the Summit.• Act with urgency: The Minister of Health inaugurated the Dialogue and emphasized the urgency of acting on these topics. • Commit to the summit: The National Convenor has expressed that the relevance of the Summit processes is that they can leverage existing policy priorities in the country. • Be respectful: Rules and principles of discussion were established for this dialogue. • Recognize complexity: There were two presentations to remark the complexity of the topics that were being discussed. One was on The Lancet Comissions related to sustainable food systems; and the other one was to present the proposed National Strategy to the general public. • Complement the work of others: different sectors were invited. • Build trust: GISAMAC was the selected platform to start the dialogues, due to the collaboration process that the group has undergone and the trust that has been built among its participants. • Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity: This principle will be pursued on the next dialogues. In this one, only government officials, academia and civil society were invited to participate.It is relevant to clearly communicate the Principles of Engagement to the participants at the beginning of the Dialogue, and at the start of every discussion group.

NoThe first Dialogue was convened using GISAMAC as an existing platform for inter-sectorial collaboration. Only government officials, academia and civil society were invited to participate. Inclusivity will be pursued in the next dialogues.

234238239240243244246249The major focus of this first National Dialogue was: a) to give a general introduction to the Summit, it’s global and national relevance, and the Dialogues process; and b) to introduce a new policy proposal that is planned to be implemented in the country called the National Healthy, Just and Sustainable Food and Nutrition Strategy for Overweight and Obesity Prevention, and c) to identify priority topics for the next dialogues. The Strategy aims at being the National Food Policy for the coming years. It includes 4 pillars: 1) Policy, 2) Environments, 3) Production and Access, 4) Individual and intrapersonal actions. The discussion regarding the National Strategy is directly related to the following Action Tracks: 1) Ensure access to safe and nutritious foods for all, 2) Shift to sustainable consumption patterns, 3) Boost nature-positive production. Opening the national dialogues by discussing a policy proposal is innovative for the country. This is the first time that food policy would be openly discussed among diverse actors—including civil society and academia—and that it will receive feedback and recommendations before being published.235238239240243244246249Participants identified the following topics as priorities for the next dialogues: • Communication, education, and behavioral change. • Policies for the first 1,000 days of life and biofortification. • Environmental protection and agri-food systems. • Agroecology and sustainable food systems. • Food loss and waste. • Indicators, monitoring and evaluation of the National Healthy, Just and Sustainable Food and Nutrition Strategy. • Commercial networks and public procurement systems. General country priorities for public policy: • Food policy tied to specific federal budget lines. • Focus the National Healthy, Just and Sustainable Food and Nutrition Strategy on Malnutrition and not only on overweight and obesity. • Access to nutritious and sustainable foods. • Capacity development for smallholder farming and family farming. • Incentives for healthy food production. • Food policy pending regulations in the country: advertisement regulations, tax policy. • Create appropriate food policy plans according to regional specific needs. • Conflict of interest regulations in food policy.236238239240243244245246249Individual and intrapersonal • Establish a greater policy focus, not only include overweight and obesity, but malnutrition. • Create Dietary Guidelines for the Mexican population that serve as the base for food policy. • Create not only a temporary campaign, but a robust behavioral change strategy that is culturally appropriate. • Create behavioral change strategies targeted to children and schools. • Take advantage of digital marketing directed to adolescents to promote healthy nutrition and physical activity behaviors. • It is relevant to create communication strategies based on human rights. • Position the relevance of consuming local and natural products.236238239240243244251Production and access • Recognize the importance of traditional production techniques that are environmentally friendly. • Encourage the use of technology for sustainability. • Support small and medium-sized farmers. • Encourage the production of local products. • Value biodiversity in food production. • Make food value chains more efficient and sustainable. • Environmental justice and land ownership. • Improve food distribution infrastructure.236238239243244246248249Food environments • It is relevant to reinforce local food value chains. • It is relevant to encourage the creation of environments appropriate for children and adolescents. • It is relevant to consider food policy regulations as part of the environment. • It is important to consider how advertisement influences the environment and how it should be regulated in harmony with other existing regulations (for example, the front of pack labelling ones). • Consider how urban design, including public transportation, can influence healthier environments. • It is relevant to communicate the new regulations to the general public, for example the one on front of pack labelling. • Create Food Based Dietary Guidelines. • Ensure access to drinking water in rural and urban vulnerable communities. • Use of public space for physical activity. • Consider school infrastructure as a mean to promote healthy food and nutrition behaviors. • Encourage consumption of local produce. • It is relevant to work together with civil society to create healthy and sustainable food environments.236238239240243244245246249Public policy • It is important to continue advancing the regulatory measures that have started in the country related to food policy. For example, the ones on food advertisement, and taxes to unhealthy food. • It is also relevant to leave no one behind in terms of food policy and create specific programs to develop capacity and give special support to family farming and smallholder farming. • It is relevant to create and implement new monitoring and evaluation indicators that respond to the new an innovative food policy.237238243249There were two divergence areas: • Changing the title of the National Strategy to the express general orientation terms and not only a focus on overweight and obesity. • Not all participants understood the relevance of linking the proposed Healthy, Just and Sustainable Food and Nutrition Strategy for Overweight and Obesity Prevention with the discussion related to sustainable agri-food systems.

2021-05-03 20:48:56204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/7859/170201202

841146243463812822212251128542211521130111

To ensure that participants were respectful, rules of engagement were set at the beginning of the dialogue. In recognizing complexity, the dialogue focused on water’s transformative role in food systems. The objective was to bring key outcomes of a regional discussion on food and water systems in a changing climate to the global policy level and to provide tangible inputs into the UNFSS. To embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity, the Southern Africa dialogue was open to a wide range of stakeholders in the water, energy, food and related sectors ranging from intergovernmental organizations; regional, national and local government departments/entities, development partners; non-governmental organizations; the private sector, research for development organizations; academia; farmers’ groups; and networks. Complementing the works of others, we introduced a plenary session comprising of global and regional speakers, as well as a panel discussion, who discussed the role of water in achieving food systems transformation and their work. The Dialogue was conducted under Chatham House Rules, where participants were free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, could be revealed. One of the principles had to be adapted: i.e. Commit to dialogue in the lead up to the Summit - the reason for this is that we had invited panelists who were especially critical of the UNFSS process, and through their institutions, have rejected being part of it, and have organized separate Food Systems Dialogues. We needed to allow participants to opt out of committing to the Summit itself, but asked them to commit to the dialogue and achieving food systems transformation in Southern Africa in this process.As aboveWe opted for a 'by invitation only' event conducted under Chatham House rules. While this contributed to establishing a safe space for all to discuss and engage freely, it also limited inclusivity to some extent. Next time, we may consider having an open invitation event and not restricting discussion to Chatham House rules. This would allow for live social media reporting and post-event outreach using specific speaker quotes etc.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Southern Africa faces an uphill battle to achieve food and water security. Research shows that roughly 43% of the region is either arid or semiarid and that 70% of its people rely on rain-fed agriculture. These circumstances have been worsened by unusual times – bringing age-old questions back to the fore – such as can Southern Africa feed itself and does the region have enough water to do so? The United Nations Food Systems (UNFSS) Southern Africa dialogue attempted to answer these questions and provide some solutions. The dialogue unpacked the way food systems can be localized and transformed in a water-constrained region in such a way that acknowledges WEF nexus linkages, promotes regional trade and enhances equity and inclusion. The UNFSS Southern Africa dialogue highlighted six key thematic areas on which participants were required to engage in an interactive manner that allowed for small group discussion, collective brainstorming, and agenda-setting. The thematic areas covered by breakout groups were: 1). Moving towards low carbon energy for food production; 2). Climate change impacts on water and food security; 3). Policy coherence and institutional coordination in water, food, energy and climate change that operationalize the WEF nexus; 4). Advancing technical WEF models, tools and frameworks for decision making at multiple scales; 5). Putting nature back in the WEF nexus: towards resilient food landscapes; and 6). Community approaches to operationalize the WEF nexus. Each group was required to discuss a series of prompt questions, with an overarching key question in each of the breakout discussions. The questions were: 1. How can we sustainably produce more food in the region using low greenhouse gas energy sources? 2. How can we sustainably enhance food security without compromising water security in the context of climate change? 3. What practical steps can/should be taken to ensure policy coherence and institutional coordination to improve water, energy and food security in the region? 4. How can WEF nexus models/tools facilitate new understanding of interdependencies and trade-offs in the WEF nexus, as well as foster data sharing and enhanced decision-making in the region? 5. How do we build more resilient food and livelihood systems while protecting critical water sources, biodiversity, and other ecosystem services? 6. How can we promote equity and inclusion in WEF nexus governance to create opportunities for transformation towards more just food, water and energy systems? Using interactive virtual facilitation tools such as jamboards, mentimeter, and mural, with collective brainstorming approaches such as the 3-Horizon approach, facilitators guided breakout discussion participants in identifying actions in the next 3 years that will have the greatest impact on the discussion topic, determinants of success of those actions, and partnership arrangements that need to be prioritized etc.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Through the discussions, priorities for action within the context of current realities were identified. The first priority identified was the need for more dialogues that promote integrated approaches linking water and energy with food. Other outcomes from the discussions included the need for data sharing across sectors and across countries; integrated scaling pathways and even the pull through of WEF nexus tools and products to scaling. The need for financing models to enable the exchange was also emphasized as well as the need for policy implementation that concretize these priorities. Other outcomes included the need for institutional coordination, specifically reconciling donor interests with nation state and regional/local institutional interests. Participants also agreed that there was a need for sizable projects to realize true systems transformation and WEF nexus operationalization. In essence, while many different views and objectives were expressed on how to achieve food systems transformation in the region, the role of water was critical in all of them. It was further emphasized that we have to move beyond the sectoral coordination approach, although this is very key – to examine the political transformations that are important in realizing more just systems transformation. Finally, the degree to which Africa and southern Africa voices/inputs on water are incorporated into the UNFSS Action Tracks (recognizing that this is still lacking in many respects) and the role of regionally focused dialogues in helping to achieve that was another major outcome from the discussions.236239240241243244245246248250How can we sustainably produce more food in the region using low greenhouse gas energy sources? The group noted that the food system is responsible for around 30% of global GHGs equating to 16 Gigatonnes per year. In developing countries over 50% of GHG are from on-farm production and bad land use. As countries develop more GHGs come from energy, industrial activities and waste management rather than land use. Methane from food waste, animals and rice production produce 35% of total GHGs emitted. It seems “Food miles” where local rail and road transport are main transport GHG emitters are less important than packaging to address. Refrigeration is main emitter in the retail post farm system and 5% of total GHGs for the food system. While 1990-2015 saw a 40% increase in production there was only 12% increase in GHGs due to and energy transition to renewables and better systems. Reducing wastage in the system is the low hanging fruit that needs to be focused on. The new AU trade agreement could help unlock regional markets and production of renewable energy technologies. Innovations that could reduce energy use in food production/value chains over the next decade include: - Agroecology and better farming practices - Using balanced feeds in livestock rearing - Low pack/no pack solutions : shops using no packaging and customers using own recycled materials when shopping in stores. - Irrigation using gravity feed systems. - Using wastewater for energy: methane could be used to produce gas for other things such as cooking and heating. - Solar PV for pumping water - Intensive farming rather than extensive - Internet purchasing: small scale farmers chain to market is long, therefore using online shopping small scale famers can shorten this and improve their on farm economics Some reason why these innovations have not taken off include: - The cost of technology and limited capital to invest in it especially at microscale where farmers have no financing. - There is a lack of trust in new technology - we do not have enough examples (e.g biogas) of such technology working well. Therefore, the needs to be more demonstrations to show people the technology works that would ensure more buy-in and less sceptism amongst policy makers. - In South Africa regulations are no longer the problem, now the issue is about building project that are at a larger scale, however it is difficult to raise finances for that. Most investors are willing to put in like $ 10 000 instead of like $100 000 which could benefit more farmers and people. - In low-income countries people are not able to afford energy innovations, there should be some subsidies that push people to invest in those innovations. - When approaching small-scale farmers with new technology we also should give them access to services to maintain them. How can we reduce water use while introducing new energy options? - Cheap energy could lead to pumping too much water. Water use needs to be automatically recorded and used for monitoring. - Utilizing wastewater for biogas rather than fresh water. - More use of efficient systems such as irrigation technologies that time irrigations flows based on what is needed and when. - There is a need for more wholesome energy that uses available waste and other resources linked to the food system.236239241244Climate change impacts on water and food security Southern Africa is experiencing a challenging climate (dry season, floods), nine months or more of dry season even before climate change, how to ensure we do not rely on the 3-4 months of the wet season and making the most during dry season (manage the dry seasons very well). There is potential on some crops that can strive (Irish potatoes) in dry season. Linking farmers to high value markets- identify areas on where to sell excess produce, formulate value addition policies and plans (improve quality). Scientific evidence or information should be made available to decision makers. Partner with colleagues from water and other sectors (different domains) to brainstorming strategies and Programmes at regional levels. Markets, policies, value addition and Partnership will help to promote food security approach and improved technology National policies mechanisms and investment policies become relevant for resilience, water availability, how much investment can government make for irrigation technology; to relieve or improve stressed food systems, energy systems Regional organisations become important players in coordinating regional priorities and also sharing needed knowledge on food security, resilience etc Promoting efficient use of water in agricultural system through improved technology such as hybrid crops (water resistant crops, drought resistant crops etc) Proper governance of water; recognise water for different uses; allocation of water (need water for irrigation, energy, agricultural production). -Poor resource farmers have to benefit from innovation of water efficient technology such as drip irrigation through engaging with them. Avoid mismatch or competing policies on climate changes. For example, when drafting NDCs and National overarching adaptation plan. How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? Food systems, smallholder farmers should be resilient Policy mechanisms- are important more especially in addressing conflicting interests. How much investment should be channelled to agriculture, & climate smart practices Water transboundary- providing support and coordination across countries Right policies- what investment we need to establish Recognising water for different uses- changing the way water is allocated to improve efficiency Politics and meaning of land is very important - take the land discussions out of politics What contributions will our organisations make? Supporting countries to develop national adaptation plan which is sector specific, how do you bring climate change adaptation and water security Technologies – improving irrigation technologies, water efficiency technologies Recognising water security in building climate change resilience. Improving trade policies to promote food securities in the region Improve regional coordination through partnership -Information dissemination through organisational platforms -Engaging with farmers including poor resource farmers to benefit from the joint discussions and innovation Promote grassroots policy engagement with relevant stakeholders236243246248249250Key challenges: Participants highlighted the silo approach as an important challenge. These exist not only across ministries and regions, where competing priorities exist, but also within organizations, where deeply embedded silos lead to inertia and contradicting priorities. This can exacerbate a lack of coherence between government institutions, regions, and when applying for funding from donors and development banks. Water, energy, and food security is necessarily cross-cutting, and requires an integrated, systems approach to navigate through trade-offs and competing industries that exist, and to leverage positive interlinkages and ways to make the WEF nexus more functional. Still, this may not be sufficient to overcome supra-institutional issues, such as budget allocations, which are typically allocated by departmental needs and priorities, and not shared strategic visions. This can slow effective cooperation. A lack of political will and direction is also seen as a large coordination issue. The WEF nexus requires institutional buy in that requires ministries to work together, and often requires direction from the highest level of government. This is especially important when dealing with different spheres of governance, but also on trans-boundary issues. Although political commitment exists, the focus has typically been on the policy, governance, and academic aspects, with little attention paid to the transition to demonstration projects, related monitoring and evaluation, participation of communities, and how to effectively scale successful demonstration projects. A loss of momentum was highlighted as a challenge. Good policies and strategies tend to only last as long as they are interesting, and resilient to new priorities. Results often take longer than five years to emerge, and it is thus important to be flexible, reassess new challenges, and changes that respond to them. Political stability, and the institutionalization of the WEF nexus, are necessary to remain sustainable and endure political terms of office. Other challenges highlighted included the need for information and data sharing. Opportunities: Participants noted that there are opportunities for clear policy guidelines, allowing for regional protocols to find meaning in national policy and strategy. Also, through the SADC nexus framework, broad political commitment can be secured. Information sharing was highlighted as a strong entry point for improved coordination, especially to address conflicts of priority. A common problem is that the policy environment is not well understood by all stakeholders. Thus, at implementation, opportunities to collaborate and improve program design are missed. The SADC regional knowledge hub presents an opportunity to overcome this, by providing a platform to highlight and map different policies, which sectors they impact, and where opportunities for collaboration exist. Regional coordination, alongside the systems approach, can help avoid issues of inward looking policies that may be detrimental to a country in the long-run. During crises, countries tend to close up, and focus on energy and food self-sufficiency. Due to a lack of endowments in water and resources, and without innovative strategies to overcome these constraints, countries might not be able to sustain visions of self-sufficiency. Financiers are an important enabling stakeholder. They can play a role in sharing lessons learned, coordinate and share information across a range of institutions, and help facilitate discussions around joint investments.236240241242243246248249250Advancing technical WEF models, tools and frameworks for decision making at multiple scales: What actions in next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion topic? Deliberate efforts at the national scale are needed e.g. through joint sector planning initiatives that break down siloes and optimize resource allocation. Developing policy and institutional supporting arrangements that can connect different scale models to achieve impact. This could be a step towards bridging the science policy gap Sensitising model development to local needs through the intentional development of useful models. Among the variety of models with wide ranging applications in the WEF nexus, local level models with short time scale/horizons have exhibited some success e.g. climate forecasting for local small scale farmers linked to smartphone applications and improved agricultural productivity. Similarly, drought forecasting models at national scale have also achieved some level of practical impact. Of importance is to ensure that models highlight the economic benefit and practical usefulness both for local communities and national planning. Linking funding models to WEF nexus model development in response to where there is greatest need and best business case e.g. waste to energy scenarios Integrating a diversity of disciplines on the WEF nexus would enrich models in developing appropriate scenarios that affect specific users. How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? 1. When models are applied and yield practical impact for specific users e.g. farmers, policy makers through a needs based, negotiated, context specific and consultative process. What contributions will our organizations make? 1. Applied research that supports the development of models and tools which can respond to local needs and broader national policies236240241242244Putting nature back in the WEF nexus: towards resilient food landscapes What actions in next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion topic? The starting point to this conversation is to first acknowledge that the WEF nexus is reliant on nature in almost all aspects and an overarching theme is to increase the protection of nature not just for the sake of nature but also for the sake of people and industries. Therefore, it is suggested that in the next few years a starting point for enhancing the living systems that support our societies and economies can be the restoration, protection, and prioritization of ecosystems and their services, such as the conservation of major water resource areas. The benefits of protecting nature are tangible to people through improved water, energy and food security. In addition to this starting point, it was noted that nature can teach us a lot. Especially when it comes to food production and consumption systems, we can learn a lot from nature in terms of circular economies, reducing waste, and increasing nutritional value. A short-term action would therefore be to implement integrated WEF systems that mirror the efficiency and circularity of nature’s systems. Another important aspect that was identified to be key to conserving nature in the WEF nexus is behaviour change. Behaviour change is needed on two fronts, i.e. both the behaviour of producers and that of consumers should be considered, scrutinised, and changed to enhance the protection of nature in WEF systems. Achieving such changes usually requires incentives for actors to implement change, especially financial incentives. Understanding incentive structures and cross-scale impacts requires further investigation. In addition, governance and policies are important tools that can be utilised to change behaviour and put nature into the WEF nexus. Key areas for action and research over the coming years are therefore incentives and policies that target behaviour change. However, it is also important to think through potential trade-offs. Balancing food production and nature conservation may result in trade-offs, and these could occur at different scales. On the other hand, we need to move beyond the false dichotomy of either prioritizing conservation OR food production – we can and should do both. The planetary boundaries can be used to guide us in more effective use of land and water in food production, which should not immediately be associated with higher levels of industrialisation. Therefore, a short-term goal should be to explore alternative effective/more optimal uses of water and land than just agricultural intensification. How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? The planetary boundaries can be used as a measure to determine the effectiveness of implementation plans. Behaviour of consumers and producers can indicate the effectiveness of strategies and policies. Another measure could be the change in policies in various countries and industries, such as changes in the food consumption industry influencing and driving change in the food production industry. What contributions will our organisations make? A point was raised that conservation organizations need to do a better job of clarifying and promoting the fundamental importance of nature in WEF systems. Often the focus is on climate change and similar (more technical) issues, so the message that we are wholly dependent on our natural systems can get lost. It is important to promote the idea of interconnected and complex WEF systems.236241242243246247248249251Community approaches to operationalise the WEF nexus: What’s already happening (see jambord: https://jamboard.google.com/d/1hUQQ1OXh5smd3d_7rhCx-rgWPA1AXY8soERaWyp6Uqg/viewer?f=5) Some rescue projects and plans already incorporate activities that have elements of conservation within communities (Livelihood recovery program in East Africa). Use of gravity in irrigation spaces among smallholder farmers (e.g in Zambia) Interconnected water projects with fish ponds in Kenya Exchange visits- learning exchanges More youth voices taking up spaces to address environmental challenges A number of smallholder irrigation examples across the SADC and South Africa. Proper research on community dynamics and suitable technologies appropriate for particular communities and not just responding to crises- building resilience & capacities Water harvesting methods used Integrated cases of water projects and food systems Enhancement of data and information collection, development, management and sharing. Strengthening institutional operations and empowerment of decision-makers. Promoting regional and cross-sectoral coordination and cooperation Multiple water use projects How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? Bottom-up; - Sustainability Centered; - Inclusive(Gender, minority groups, indigenous communities) Probably the policy environment developed to enable everyone to participate! It means everyone participates in the WEF dialogue Women, youth , vulnerable and marginalized members of the society are included in planning phase More adoption of renewable energy systems Different GESI groups having equitable access to resources Created common understanding of WEF if possible! Inclusivity with specific focus to people with disabilities when it comes to resource use and benefitting. What contributions will our organisations make? Ensure community members participate in decisions of managing and utilizing WEF nexus resources Co-produce knowledge- science, ILK and practical related to WEF and shared across communities Work with communities at their level, listen and understand their priorities Build trust in communities and have honest engagement. Systems-based approach linked to livelihoods & holistic response options237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Areas of divergence emerged in most of the breakout discussions. Climate change discussion: Competing priorities- breaking down the silo mentality through partnership Lots of overlapping and competing policies and strategies, lack of balance on the different policies What does it mean to make Southern Africa climate resilient? Lack of coordination at regional level that need proper communication channels Lack of donor funding or financing-driving to more relevant actions that will promote funding Lack of political will and interest at national and regional level Competing and Mismatch of policies that can be addressed through synergies. WEF models discussion: Not all models are scalable to different scale and contexts and may only be useful in a single context. This is an important factor to consider in the discussion of applicability of WEF models and tools. Putting nature back in the nexus: Consumers as the main driver of agriculture production can be seen as a divergence, since the consumer can dictate the abilities of a food producer to be able to move to more sustainable practices. This insight comes from an example of the agroecology industry, where we often hear calls to reduce chemical inputs. However, the reduction of chemical inputs often results in an increase in labour costs. If consumers are not willing to absorb the increase in costs, it restricts the producers’ ability to reduce reliance on chemicals. The complexity of consumer choice also brought the group to think about the plausibility and justice implications of the consumers driving change. For instance, paying higher prices for sustainably produced food might be more possible in developed countries, where consumers may have better access to information and are more likely to be able to absorb the price differences. But in response, it was raised that it is even more important that consumers drive change in developing regions such as southern Africa, where the loss of diversity and nutrition in diets is leading to poorer health and well-being outcomes, especially amongst the poor. Putting nature back in the WEF nexus therefore has the potential to improve not just people’s well-being, but also address socio-economic inequalities. Change is therefore essential, and both consumers and producers face some responsibility in building more nature-based food systems. Community approaches discussion: Domestication of WEF frameworks due to lack of local interpretation of what WEF means Resource scarcities, infrastructure, inequality, spatial planning laws, physical barriers, economic barriers. Inappropriate technologies that end up disadvantaging some groups that are meant to benefit from the interventions Many SADC countries have historical imbalances that have kept communities separated Resource gap, Finance for WEF development, Market for potential investment, Universal Political Commitment, Climate Uncertainties Land tenure systems in less favour of women who are most involved in farming processes. The challenge of financial access to food, energy and water that ultimately affects the successful working of the Nexus. The varying costs of the 3 affects each component of the Nexus. Communities are unable to navigate and prioritise each facet within the Nexus thanks to the conflicting needs, especially each being a basic need. Marginalized voices of smallholder farmers Climate change related disasters such as drought have heavily impacted agro-based systems, perpetuating poverty. COVID-19 has also impacted the systems heavily.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/UNFSS-Southern-Africa-Dialogue-Invitation-13-April.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/UNFSS-Concept-Note-V3.pdfhttps://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/events/unfss-independent-dialogue-in-southern-africa/https://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/2021/04/data-dialogues-and-discussion-key-to-food-water-and-energy-security-in-southern-africa/https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/1sKPjojeWd-nHSmH3beFCuFfbkBpRqYyW

2021-05-03 23:52:11205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/12916/149

190213400136024000000601010050001000110031400000620

Total 19 people, including representatives of farmers unions, consumers organizations, food industries, NGOs, government officials, public institutions and specialists from academia participated. The participants were selected considering their demographics, working sectors and interests.

Yes

234238242249The dialogue mainly focused on “food security” issues such as stabilizing food supply, maintaining production base, and boosting food crisis response. Also, the needs for international cooperation was discussed to ensure food security and to contribute overcoming current global food crisis.235238242249As a result of the second meeting, the importance of establishing long-term plans and supporting farm household income, setting adequate level of food self-sufficiency rate, and connecting domestic food production and consumption was emphasized to stabilize food supply and maintain food production base. Also, the importance of securing agricultural manpower for stable food production was presented. To cope with global food crisis, the necessity of securing grain stockpiling and connecting ODA projects with overseas agricultural development projects was suggested.236242249In addition, from the perspective of international cooperation, it was suggested that Korean government needs to share “past development experiences” in agriculture with developing countries and that major grain exporting countries should play a leading role in stabilizing global grain market. There was an opinion that issues related to “small farmers”, “vulnerable farmers” and “elderly farmers” should be considered as important in order for UN food system summit to serve as “A People's Summit”.

2021-05-04 02:07:23204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/6597/132

5103242310262502311010000250090207012400732350000604014

The Principles of Engagement were communicated to invitees in the documentation released prior to the event. The event curator introduced the Principles of Engagement in his welcoming remarks. The co-convenors also presented the Principles of Engagement within a brief PowerPoint that aimed to put context around the Dialogue Event.The Principles revolve around the combination of problem recognition, stakeholder definition and engagement, common purpose, a call to action, as well as good manners and respect. All Dialogue Participants participated in good faith and in a constructive manner in this Dialogue. A Dialogue on the topic of food systems, with a focus on fresh produce and involving both commercial and not-for-profit charitable organisations, as well as churches, has not occurred in New Zealand to such an intensity prior to this event. All Participants absorbed the multiple messages they had received about the Principles of Engagement and delivered their views, analysis, opinions and suggestions within the spirit of the Principles.Do not assume that Dialogue Invitees will follow hyperlinks to find the Principles by themselves. Use every opportunity that presents itself to communicate the Principles in detail in the leadup to your Dialogue and at the Dialogue Event itself. Remember, some people absorb information better through reading, others through a presentation and others again by hearing the spoken word. Be prepared for surprises occurring within the Dialogue, relating to positions taken by individual participants. As convenor or facilitator, do not assume you know what an individual participant is about to contribute on the basis of their known affiliation.

NoA YES/NO answer to the question above is, from our perspective, not sufficient for reporting purposes. Our Dialogue stayed within the strategic framework outlined within the Convenor's Reference Manual, but we made adjustments to the respective roles of Curator and Convenor. These were as follows: - Aotearoa New Zealand has a bicultural identity based on the Treaty of Waitangi. This treaty is a living document that has its origin in 1840 when it was signed by representatives of the British Crown and many Māori chiefs. Today it is central to the relationship between Māori, who are recognized as the indigenous people of Aotearoa New Zealand, and all of those who have made Aotearoa New Zealand their home since 1840. On that basis, United Fresh invited Tahuri Whenua, the National Māori Vegetable Growers Collective, to co-convene the Dialogue and appoint Dr Nick Roskruge, Chair of Tahuri Whenua, and Dr Hans Maurer, Chair of the United Fresh Technical Advisory Group, as co-convenors. - For the role of curator, the co-convenors selected the United Fresh President, Jerry Prendergast. Jerry is an experienced MC in a diverse range of industry settings. - Co-convenors and curator agreed on their respective roles in guiding the dialogue beforehand, which ensured a successful and meaningful Dialogue for all Participants. - One of the co-convenors, Dr Hans Maurer is also the representative of the International Federation for Produce Standards (IFPS) on the Private Sector Guiding Group (PSGG) set up by World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) to provide guidance and insight for the 2021 Food Systems Summit from a business perspective. Dr Maurer contributed his learnings in that forum into the organisational structure and delivery of this Dialogue. - Informal feedback received from a number of Participants after the event supports the assertion that "points of divergence and convergence were able to surface", and that "all voices were heard". The Dialogue process was not focused inwardly on produce industry issues in an isolated fashion. Rather, it was developed to be inclusive of vulnerable communities within the population, with these being represented by representatives of various churches and NGOs, all of which being operators of food banks or distributors of fresh produce on a non-commercial basis. This deliberate inclusion was to some extent related to the learnings the wider industry generated through the various Covid-19 related lockdowns that have occurred in Aotearoa New Zealand.

234238239240241242243244246248249250When the co-convenors started the process of selecting the focus of their Dialogue, they, in the first instance, looked at the five action tracks. Each of those action tracks resonated sufficiently to lead to the decision to cover all five of them in our Dialogue. That is exactly what happened. The other supporting focal points that assisted in reaching the decision to include all five action tracks were: - The role of fresh fruit and vegetables ought to play in everyone's diet; - The fundamental underpinning element of bi-cultural nationhood in Aotearoa New Zealand; - The multi-ethnic fabric of Aotearoa New Zealand society; - The real land and water resource concern prevalent in Aotearoa New Zealand right now; - The recent experiences in relation to COVID-19 lockdowns, and the resulting pressures on fresh produce supply chains; - The opportunity to built on structured programmes already in place (e.g., 5+ A Day). The co-convenors felt they could have easily focused on just one or two of those topics, and this might just occur in future Dialogues. It was felt that is was critical though, at this stage, to take a broad-brush approach in order to ensure that the Aotearoa New Zealand produce industry was able to engage with all action tracks, so that all topics the United Nations Organisers had raised within the Dialogue framework received a response.235238239240241242243244246248249250Aotearoa New Zealand is a net exporter of food, excelling in key perishable produce categories such as kiwifruit, pipfruit, avocados, onions and others to an extent that belies the challenges we have in terms of distance to our export markets. At the same time we are able to grow everything we need to feed our growing population. To put this into context, Aotearoa New Zealand had just over 3 million inhabitants in 1981. 40 years later, in 2021, there are 5 million people. Our bicultural nation structure combined with our multi-ethnical population segmentation does create challenges that spread across all 5 action tracks. The MAJOR FINDINGS that emerged in THE FUTURE FOR FRUIT AND VEGETAVLE KAI SYSTEMS IN AOTEAROA NEW ZEALAND Dialogue are: - The rationale behind the UN Food Systems Summit and the use of this Dialogue as a tool resonated with all participants. - There was general agreement that the UN Sustainable Development Goals have a high level of relevance for Aotearoa New Zealand. - A dialogue of this nature, with produce industry representatives across the entire supply chain from production to retail, meeting with tangata whenua ("the people of the land", a term by which Māori often refer to themselves) as well as organisations supporting vulnerable communities such as churches, food banks, and NGOs, is not something that has been achieved in this structured format prior to this event. - In several of the discussion groups, participants coming from different ends of the supply chain spectrum expressed genuine surprise about the ability to conduct a rational dialogue in this format. - The type of "actions" that can be taken across the 5 discussion topics varies. They are generally 4 distinctly differing reasons for that variation. -- Actions that can be taken may be obvious because the topic under discussion relates to an initiative that is well established and underway. This is the case with our Discussion Group 4, which focused on using the 5+ A Day programme to aid Advancing Equitable Livelihoods. -- Actions that can be taken are already underway, with the dialogue affording an opportunity to marshall further resources and resolve, to follow through with these necessary actions. Our Discussion Group 2 focused on access to sustainable land and water resources for production. Just a week prior, the New Zealand Ministry for the Environment released a report entitled "Our Land 2021". The report is addressing exactly that same concern as we dealt with in our Discussion Group. -- Actions that would make sense have been identified, but industry implementers are still trying to come to grips with the consequences and implications, within their micro-environments, of taking actions. -- The need for Actions is understood but before Actions can be framed, further communication and dialogue is necessary. Within each group, participants focused on identifying the specific goals and actions that would help deliver the SDGs by 2030, in a manner that aligned with the action tracks and discussed topic. The key discussion outcomes in each of our 5 Discussion Groups are as follows (Starting with Discussion Group 1 and concluding with Group 5): - Communication and collaboration, between all supply chain participants, will be a main driver to ensuring accessibility of fresh fruits and vegetables. - Our current systems are structured in a linear fashion, with the primary focus on resource production and extraction. There is very little emphasis, if at all, on sustainable systems or community focused systems. These systems should become more circular, and activities such as regenerating clean water and putting it back into the system should become the norm. - Improved education is key in ensuring our people, including our rangitahi (the future generations), have access to, and knowledge of, new technologies and systems. This will enable our people, including our rangitahi, to develop the necessary skills for participating in the highly skilled technological aspects of the sector. - Spreading the messages throughout the supply chain is a challenge that requires collective effort from those involved. People see the task as being so substantial, that it is difficult to affect change. - We need a more proactive approach to the challenges the supply chain faces, aiming for "fewer ambulances at the bottom of the cliff, and more attention on fence strengthening at the top". The main point from the Tahuri Whenua involvement is the recognition of food sovereignty as a primary indigenous interest in any food value chain being developed, especially those foods still being identified for commercial uptake. So the expectation for 2030 is that food sovereignty is appropriately understood and supported.236238244246247249ALL COMMUNITIES IN AOTEAROA NEW ZEALAND HAVE ACCESS TO FRESH FRUIT AND VEGETABLES The discussion topic aimed at analyzing the constraints and possible solutions needed towards ensuring that everyone has access to fresh fruits and vegetables. This topic refers to an underlying issue that we were already well aware of, but were suddenly reminded of its urgency, when COVID-19 containment measures were put in place. Dealing with such an issue will require an immense effort from everyone involved. The discussion group for this topic outlined the following outcomes: - We need to "work collaboratively - not in silos", "give the industry a voice" and "create a communication network of all parties including Iwi/Te Ao Māori", loosely translatable as 'Māori tribes/the Māori way of looking at things'. - We need to "address transport shortfalls, especially for rural communities". - We need to "look into the supply chain structures, understand where the gaps are and find opportunities". - We need to improve "Supporting current channels that are feeding the need in the community". The listed outcomes are a first step on the journey towards finding common solutions.236239243244246248250SUSTAINABLE ACCESS TO SUITABLE AND AFFORDABLE LAND AND WATER RESOURES ESSENTIAL FOR HORTICULTURAL PRODUCTION HAS BEEN ACHIEVED From the discussion the following outcomes were highlighted: - "We need to audit the future concept from a consumer point of view"; - "We tend to gloss over the true value of water and its role in production"; - "There is a clear disconnect around data and its contribution to the future of land use and production"; - "Our current systems are too linear and all about taking of the resource and very little emphasis on giving back"; - "By 2030 we need to have significant inroads to land management and returning inputs"; - Technology is "often for incremental change, expensive and not accessible to all". It is a necessary resource but "needs to be viewed across whole of sector".236240244246248PRODUCE INDUSTRY USE OF LABOUR AND TECHNOLOGY ARE OPTIMALLY BALANCED AND ALIGNED The following outcomes were identified by the discussion group participants as the areas where further work is necessary to achieve the goal of "optimally balanced and aligned technologies". - "Broader education [on food systems], not only within the produce industry, but also within the wider New Zealand society is needed, if we are to achieve optimal balance between labour and technology"; - "Continue developing robust and proper traceability systems from field to fork, which are not currently being fully achieved"; - "Focus on developing a nimble supply chain with real time management, something not currently being fully achieved". Education was identified as the main area of focus towards achieving optimally balanced and aligned used of labour and technology.236241246247249ALL KIWIS ARE EATING 5+ A DAY AND ARE BENEFITING FROM THE ASSOCIATED NUTRITION AND HEALTH BENEFITS The following outcomes were identified that will have the greatest impact in the progress towards: - Improving communication between "industry, government, NGOs, non-profit organisations, right through to consumers"; - Reviewing policies "at macro and micro levels (e.g., accessibility of fruits and vegetables, ensuring maximum crops are harvested, and reintroducing nutrition policies in the education system)", "multiple ministries working together", and "influencing change around marketing (e.g., reinvention of health claims)"; - "Smart use of technology through innovative apps, incorporating ethnic ideas, and fruits and vegetables presented in new ways (e.g., kumara noodles)"; - "Increasing nutrition training for those who are advocates in the health and education sectors (e.g. doctors and teachers)". Achieving the identified outcomes will generate benefits for the health, economy, and environment of Aotearoa New Zealand and its people.236242244246248FRESH PRODUCE SUPPLY CHAINS ARE OF SUFFICIENT ROBUSTNESS TO COPE WITH CRITICAL EVENTS AND FORCE MAJEURE The following outcomes were agreed upon by the participants as areas of focus for improvement: - "Higher focus on education at community level (how to grow and how to cook food)"; - The fresh produce industry needs "to spend more time maintaining the fences at the top of the cliff rather than being the ambulance at the bottom”; - "There is no one solution and approaches to the issues need to be multifaceted"; - Consumers across the population as a whole need help to regain/maintain their connection with the land and its products. Robustness of the supply chain is entirely dependent on how on well prepared supply chain operators are for the unexpected. To have a robust food system, it is necessary to also understand how to optimise the resources available when producing fruits and vegetables, with an additional focus on minimising waste.237238239240241242243244246248249250251The following areas of divergence were identified during the Dialogue: - Industry and the public have different perceptions of the fresh produce industry resource usage of land, water, and related materials. - The level of research needed to identify consumer knowledge gaps about the industry, and consumer perceptions of how the industry can maintain sustainability. - How to reach kiwi palates/taste buds (especially due to today’s easily accessible high fat, salt and sugary foods). - The creation of ‘how to’ communications for using fruits and vegetables in meals. - How to address the potential reality where enhanced technology could displace the human workforce and how can we mitigate the loss of employment and loss of connection to food production from the land. - How we focus education, in ensuring our people, such as our rangitahi (the future generations), are able to gain access to advanced skillsets, so that they can be employed in the technology element of the industry, rather than in the lower-skilled, lower paid positions.

We have identified some spelling and Grammar Mistakes in the Submitted Form. Major Focus Section: Final bullet point – “built” should be “build”. Major Focus Section: Final bullet point, the brackets “(e.g., 5+ A Day)” should state “(e.g., 5+ A Day and Fruit in Schools)” Main Findings Section: Fifth paragraph, “vegetavle” should be “vegetable”. Main Findings Section: sixth bullet point underneath “Dialogue are” paragraph, starting with “Actions that can be taken may be obvious”, the section “focused on using the 5+ A Day programme” should read “focused on using the 5+ A Day programme and the Fruit in Schools Initiative”. Outcomes For Discussion Topic 2/5 Section: First paragraph, “resoures” should be “resources”. Outcomes For Discussion Topic 3/5 Section: final sentence, “used” should be “use”. Outcomes For Discussion Topic 2/5 Section: Final paragraph, first sentence, “on how on well” should be “on how well”. 2021-05-06 22:40:44

2021-05-04 10:09:07204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/10923/62

9101949148151400151102200021001200014572000022500191002223512

The Dialogue was organized according to the UNFSS’ Principles of Engagement. Participants were introduced to the summit vision, objectives and action tracks. The links to the Principles of engagement themselves were shared in an email to event registrants prior to the online event, briefly reviewed by the curator and then also pasted in the chat box during the event.The Dialogue was organized with a focus on developing contributions to the FSS and elaborating pathways toward food systems transformation contributing to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The choice of focus on water security for food systems transformation very much addressed the lack of the direct attention to water within the UNFSS structure. The participation of multiple stakeholders was encouraged by bringing together a diverse group of actors in addition to those that typically engage in the area of water, food security, and nutrition. The Dialogue invitation was sent across actors in research and academia, international financial institutions, farmers at various scales, private sector, etc. Interpretation (English-Arabic) was available during plenary sessions, while breakout room discussion facilitators were encouraged to hear from all participants in both English and Arabic. The Feedback from the breakout discussion opened the floor to questions or comments from participants. Participants were twice engaged in live polls (via Slido) during the dialogue, with the second poll utilizing response options put forward from each breakout room discussion. Breakout room discussion topics covered varying areas and topics within water security for food systems transformation, including both more technical and more policy-oriented topics.It is recommended to set the stage early on regarding the ‘purpose’ of the Dialogue by explaining the UNFSS’ objectives and vision and action tracks, particularly for the benefit of participants who may be unfamiliar. This event was an Independent Dialogue with a national focus, thus providing interpretation (English-Arabic) definitely opened the door for contributions and engagement where language may have been a barrier. Engaging participants’ active audio-visual interventions by way of live polls and encouraging chat box discussions, actions or comments and questions, etc, increased participants’ involvement.

NoOwing to COVID-19 restrictions, the dialogue was organized as an online 150-minute meeting via Zoom Meetings. Two sets of Opening Remarks were followed by three Introductory Presentations on System-level solutions, New water solutions and Water and food systems transformations in Egypt. This was followed by six parallel breakout room discussions then occurred, with participants pre-assigned to a room based on the first or second choice they selected during Registration. Interpretation (English-Arabic) was available during plenary sessions, while breakout room discussion facilitators were encouraged to hear from all participants in both English and Arabic. During the Feedback from Breakout Discussions session, Facilitators and Notetakers presented a summary from each room before addressing questions coming in through the chat box. This was followed by a Panel Discussion that involved representatives from various perspectives, including a ministry advisor, international financial institution, private sector, and a farmer. Closing remarks then offered a summary closing statement and key takeaways. A poll at the beginning of the event, using Slido, had participants share the province/governorate/state/subnational region they were joining the event from. A number of participants, but not all, took part in the poll. Results show a number of participants from within Egypt, the MENA region, as well as international participants. Another poll came at the end of the Feedback from Breakout Discussions had participants vote on the Top actions to improve water security in Egypt. Response options for this poll came directly from each breakout room providing two actions. More participants took part in this poll than in the first one.

234238239240241242243244245246248249250251Water scarcity remains a key challenge for agricultural development in the MENA region, including Egypt. Scarcity is rapidly growing as a result of climate change and rapid increases in water demand for non-irrigation other uses. Considering that Egypt’s agri-food system provided critical cushioning for economic growth, jobs, and household income negatively impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, it is paramount that more consideration is given to the important role of water security for Egypt’s food systems. With agriculture utilizing over 80% of Egypt’s water resources, meeting these challenges will require bold actions and new mindsets directed at water and food systems transformations to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. The Independent Dialogue was convened in partnership between the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), the International Water Management Institute (IWMI) and the International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA) to discuss the role of Water Security for Food Systems Transformation in Egypt. Insights emerging from this multi-stakeholder dialogue will be presented to contribute to the United Nations Food System Summit (UNFSS) in September 2021. Transforming #foodsystems is among the most powerful ways to make progress towards all 17 #SDGS. The dialogue discussed the importance of water security for all aspects of Egypt’s food systems, with a focus on equity, inclusion, capacity, innovation and sustainability, including insights on how food systems need to change to improve water security (SDG 6), help eliminate hunger (SGD2), support energy security (SDG 7), improve climate adaptation and mitigation (SDG 13) and help retain all Life on land (SDG 15). This pre-UNFSS2021 session therefore sought to unpack the question: What is the role of water in transforming Egypt’s food systems for improved water and food security and environmental sustainability? Speakers and panelists from Egypt and beyond engaged in interactive group discussions, collective brainstorming, and agenda-setting. As Egypt and the MENA region map out the road to UNFSS 2021, the dialogue discussed key messages that need to be heard at UNFSS 2021.235238239240241242243244245246248249250Egypt is a perfect case for the interconnectedness of water and food systems, not only because the country has one of the world’s oldest civilizations built on irrigation, but also because water and food security are the largest development challenges the country is facing. Moreover, Egypt has multiple good practices, success stories and bright spots of using water for food system transformations. At the same time, Egypt is directly affected by climate change with hotter temperatures, and increased crop water demand, as well as heat stress affecting farmers, agricultural workers as well as livestock. One of the largest challenges that the participants noted is that while both water and food security are on top of Egypt’s agenda water security and food security are two sectors in silos. A key recommendation noted by participants is to bring the two sectors together and to put farmers and their communities at the heart of any reform. Several private-sector firms are engaged in optimizing Egypt’s irrigation water use; this includes irrigation in the New Lands that use high-end center-pivot systems. Given growing water shortages in the country—using water more sustainably and further optimizing irrigation water use were recommendations that permeated all breakout room sessions. While the private sector is active in Egypt’s water and food sectors, it was noted that regulations and incentive structures affecting the private sector would benefit from further review. Given Egypt’s diverse agricultural ecologies, including the Nile Delta, the New Lands, the old lands, upstream and downstream areas, more targeted agricultural water use investments were recommended. Based on more targeted interventions, these can be scaled up and further promoted, such as the value chain approach used in Nubaria’s new lands which has been sustained for more than 10 year. The participants agreed that more effort is needed to invest in water-saving technologies and support farmers in the application of such technologies. The example of farmers in Indonesia shifting from flood to drip irrigation was mentioned. Use of digital tools—to improve irrigation scheduling—and support to extension services by connecting them to the research community to ensure a more steady flow of innovation from research to farmers and from farmers to researchers was also recommended. It was noted that additional incentives might be required, including smart subsidies, to support farmers in adopting new technologies that would support both water and food security outcomes. The potential of land consolidation, of running canals like utilities, and of paying farmers for using less irrigation water were all discussed and it was agreed that more studies and pilots are needed in this area. In addition to the suggestion to investing in improved seeds, there were also discussions if Egypt should possibly reduce production of rice and sugarcane, which are both water intensive. Finally, there is a need for improved policy coherence and institutional decentralization in addition to making more services available to farmers in terms of finance, digital tools, direct support to farmers. Other issues that need to be considered for achieving increased water security while transforming food systems include improved access to energy for food processing and storage. This can also improve nutritional outcomes. Participants suggested that reducing both water and food losses for key food value chains could save one third of total resources currently used to produce food commodities and could thus strengthen food and security in Egypt. This would require innovation in access to finance and insurance for farmers with only small plots of land or those who do not own any land, as well as access to technology and investment in bringing the technology to farmers. Finally, participants also noted that consumers need to understand the value of water and how climate change may jeopardize water security. Raising awareness of consumers of the water embedded in the food they consume may encourage shifts in consumer behavior and mentality toward more sustainable food consumption patterns. Policy makers should highlight and incorporate the importance of this issue across the educational system to encourage all age-groups and generations to consider the role of food consumption for water security.236238239240241242243244246248249250Breakout Room 1: Food and Water Systems in a Changing Climate What actions in the next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion Topic? • Consumer Behavior: Consumers need to understand the value of water and how climate change may jeopardize water security. Raising awareness may encourage shifts in consumer behavior and mentality toward more sustainable food consumption patterns. Policy makers should highlight and incorporate this issue across the educational system to encourage all age-groups and generations to consider food consumption’s role for water security. • Diversifying Water Sources: Egypt should proactively diversify its sources of irrigation water (e.g. wastewater and desert aquifers) while shifting to smart water-use solutions. • Evidence-Based Decision-Making: Better linking decision makers and academic efforts to encourage strategic changes towards more sustainability-minded initiatives and innovative technologies (e.g. neo-greenhouses incorporating aquaculture and integrated farming). • Water markets may incentivize lower water use amongst users and distinguish between water prices for irrigation use versus household use. Employing incentive mechanisms embedded in water markets can encourage sustainable investor and consumer behavior leading to reallocation of water sources across different sectors (e.g. agriculture, manufacturing, and public water supply). Also, strengthening regulations to reduce wasteful water use and to boost water-saving technologies. • Irrigation patterns play a crucial role, with some crops requiring more water like rice, mangoes and avocadoes. Changing the existing crop mix could lower water-use. • Trade of Agricultural Products: Importing water intensive products and exporting less water intensive commodities could be one solution to reduce local water use. What contributions will you or your organization make and why does this matter? • Academic Institutions may introduce curriculum modules focusing on sustainable development, organic agriculture, water-use efficiency and sustainability in engineering and social sciences as well as methodologies and case studies more relevant to Egypt with suitable practices and technologies. • Private Companies may focus on knowledge and technology transfer where currently inaccessible. Encouraging corporate social responsibility departments to direct projects towards sustainable development (e.g. greenhouses’ potential to save 70%-90% of water consumption), and relaying the potential for the projects to them, may contribute to this effort. • Education and raising awareness on the individual and community levels and mainstreaming elements to be applied on a day to day basis. For example, introducing urban gardening through hydroponic rooftop kits. • Promoting funding for climate and environmentally friendly projects and proposing such projects to ministries and governments to start applying these interventions. • Agriculture institutions working on soil and water management can promote farmers’ adoption of new technological methodologies (e.g. use of saline water and recycling wastewater for irrigation) to avoid soil erosion and reduce freshwater consumption. This can be accelerated through using extension systems via NGOs and the private sector. • Each individual is also responsible to change their own behavior to avoid food waste, because consumption patterns at the individual level affect the aggregate level. • Water saving interventions are needed to help promote social norms around water conservation at both the household and public levels.236238239240241242244245246249Breakout Room 2: Policy Coherence and Institutional Coordination Across Water and Food Security in Egypt What actions in next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion Topic? Discussants came up with various solutions and strategies to support water security in Egypt over the next three years. It was suggested that better coordination within and increased authority of existing inter-ministerial committees would be more efficient than building new structures from scratch. A discussant mentioned that in some cases committees had a very well-established development plan that was affected by the lack of coordination between ministries and agencies. More financial autonomy and stronger empowerment of these committees would help strengthen joint progress of water security and food systems transformation. Decentralization of natural resources would stimulate the engagement of the private sector which would eventually contribute to constructing a more sustainable development path hand-in-hand with government. Strengthened bottom-up planning can also support existing top-down planning efforts. Participants also noted that there were strong mutual linkages between water and food security goals in joint projects on the ground, but that these joint goals could not be maintained at higher levels of authority. Discussants also shared some pilot ideas such as 1) managing canal systems as public utilities, 2) supporting land consolidation for increased resource use efficiencies; and 3) awareness raising on growing water scarcities; 4) better targeting of water (and food security) interventions based on agro-ecological conditions (i.e. agroecological zoning); 5) communication of success stories on water and food security in Egypt—given that Egypt has achieved the highest crop yields across all African countries. Such success stories could help guide and inspire other countries in the region. Moreover, most of the discussants agreed on the following: • Institutions need a more efficient coordination to optimize water and food security goals. • Farmers need to be better engaged in any development plan through stronger communication with water and agricultural agencies regarding the challenges that they face and the untapped opportunities that governments should seek to help improve farmers’ welfare. • Capacity building for ministerial committees is an essential aspect that was highlighted by discussants from various backgrounds. What contributions will you or your organisation make and why does this matter? • Collaboration with the Ministry of Water Resources and Irrigation and the Ministry of Agriculture on joint dialogues, building technical capacity and negotiation skills for engineers in these agencies. Improved communication and negotiation skills are considered critical for improved water and food security. • Collecting more data that describe how water and food security interact at farm level in Egypt • A participating journal editor suggested further publishing Egypt’s success stories and welcomes submissions. • International Financial Institutions offered to provide significant support to generate evidence on successful water sector reforms in Egypt. • PhD students participating in the session noted the importance and willingness to develop more actionable science on joint water and food security.236238241242243244245246247248249250251Breakout Room 3: Equity Consideration in Access to Affordable Water and Food What actions in next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion Topic? • More focus should be given to social and economic actions as compared to a technical action-focus. Participants noted that it was important for decisionmakers to work more closely with society to feed into decisions, recognizing social actors’ voices and participation in solution design and decision-making. • Encouraging cross-sectorial policy and decision-making processes that involve the water-food nexus approach. • Targeting research to understand the needs of the community and collect data on the most important actions and interventions including co-designed-and informed decision tools. • Employing a water systems approaches for food transformation including water governance analysis to support demand management. • Defining vulnerable groups, including women, through vulnerability assessments and offering financial support and access to investment as well as information. • Developing case-specific solutions and incentives for farmers to encourage implementation of climate-oriented action. • Gather on-the-ground data and information related to water scarcity and develop relevant tools. • Increasing community awareness about the impact of climate change and their contribution to mitigation. • Implementing small scale projects on-the-ground to represent success stories which can be mainstreamed on a larger scale. • Applying cost-benefit analysis and feasibility studies to ensure profitability for stakeholders that are directly affiliated with the projects to be implemented. • Increasing water availability through decreasing waste along the process of the crop production. • Increasing research on crops that require less water or that are heat tolerant. • Encouraging collective operation of fragmented lands through farmer joint ventures for sustainable use of available resources. • Building the capacity of farmers in the old lands for crop selection, utilization of user-friendly technologies and land management. • Raising farmers’ awareness of the effect of their water consumption on neighboring farms. • Connecting communities with decision makers to ensure their involvement in the policy making processes. • Considering altering policies to guarantee and protect land ownership for farmers What contributions will you or your organisation make and why does this matter? • Raising awareness of rural communities on the impact of the climate change. Applying financing solutions such as 50/50 loans. • Raising awareness of farmers on the effect of water consumption on their neighboring land. • Involving the community in all sustainability projects implemented on-the-ground to guarantee that their input will be taken into consideration and raise their own awareness on climate change impacts • Creating new food safety agency with a new food safety index for Africa • Raising awareness of the famers on water saving technologies and using ICT solutions on-farm, such as the IRWI application which informs farmers how much water is needed and when based on crop, soil and irrigation types, water pumping, energy, planting time, etc. • Scaling up innovation for Water and Energy for Food (WE4F) through the MENA Regional Innovation Hub to produce more nutritious food with less water and energy • Building and strengthening the capacity of governmental and non-governmental organisations on water governance in the MENA region, including Egypt.236238239240241242243244245246248249250Breakout Room 4: Climate Smart Interventions for Agri-food Transformation in Egypt What actions in next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion Topic? It is evident that climate smart interventions in Egypt will set a benchmark, regionally, for achieving climate smartness in water productivity within the agriculture sector. It was unanimously accepted that the changing climate has drastically perturbed the sustainability of Egypt’s agricultural production capacities through unsustainable water use and offshoot problems such as land degradation and salinity. Mentioned key priority actions for achieving water security and agri-food transformations in the next three years included: • Promoting organic practices as sustainable food production practices and a route to reduced land degradation, and climate resilience. • Shifting consumer preferences towards climate-smart foods and transforming crop cultivating ways (e.g. creating awareness about climate smartness to end-users thereby creating an economic context for farmers to produce climate smart crops/livestock). • Using low-cost technologies in climate smart irrigation and on-farm water management practices. • Reducing dependence on high water consuming crops systems like rice, potato, sugarcane, etc. and transforming the cropping system according to local conditions. • Engaging communities and civil society in implementing climate smart interventions at all scales (farmstead to policy development). • Inclusion of agroecological zoning in large scale projects and masterplans of water and land use structures to identify location specific package of practices and suitable cropping patterns. • Use of climate smart crops (heat, water and salinity tolerant crop varieties) and scaling up using an efficient seed system. While extension services in Egypt are not very powerful, digital extension services should be promoted to help farmers in systems transformation. Farmers have benefited from longstanding energy and fertilizer subsidies for production making transformation a challenge for farmers. Digital tools, civil society involvement, new policies on infrastructure and capacity development could be impactful in Egypt in the next few years. What contributions will you or your organisation make and why does this matter? Organizations are mainly working towards agri-food system sustainability through: • Implementing large location-specific climate smart infrastructure development projects with an agroecological zoning perspective. • Enhancing climate resilience for small farmers through distribution of drought tolerant seeds and crop varieties. • Counselling and creating awareness on transforming diesel related energy sources into solar energy technologies. • Investing in precise estimations of crop evapotranspiration and developing algorithms to recommend regional irrigation needs. • Providing agroecological zoning for suitable cropping system water-land use resource plans • Working on land reclamation projects through organic farming • Use of agronomic technologies like mechanized seeds and Climate Smart-Solar technologies are key interventions, which should be considered in future.236238239240241242243244245248250Breakout Room 5: Digital Solutions for Agri-Food Transformation in Egypt What actions in next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion Topic? • There is a strong potential for digital solutions due to government digitization efforts and the provision of more services in a digital form, especially as COVID-19 pushed everyone, even farmers, to change toward digitalization. • When we are speaking of digital agriculture and including farmers in value chains, efforts towards digital agriculture literacy need to be applied at both ends of the value chain. • Enhancing internet coverage and providing affordable smartphones are essential for digital inclusion amongst rural communities and farmers. • Work more closely with financial institutions for a closer link between various financial structures and agriculture. • Avoiding working in silos and creating synergies between and across the many initiatives already underway by various organizations, and across disciplines and platforms while maintaining individuality and personality. Tools and applications for agriculture are available, many with similar targets. • Fill the data gap between research and technology. • Distributing the benefits of new technologies across to smallholder farmers in Egypt. Much like in India, there is land fragmentation and small land holding sizes in Egypt. This affects farmers who may not have enough capital to invest in their farms and use new technologies. • Empower farmers, as the end-users, and provide them with the knowledge for making their own decisions. What contributions will you or your organisation make and why does this matter? • Developing agricultural applications for extension services linkages to provide online marketing facilities and business matchmaking. • Working on developing tools and applications, as a one-stop shop for farmers and companies to access more information and build trust, and willingness to work together. • Land fragmentation and small land-holding size make it difficult to use optical satellite images with coarse grid resolution for crop mapping, using machine learning algorithms. Instead, crop type mapping using SAR radar technology will be a game changer in identifying cropping areas and non-cropping areas. • Developing an innovation platform related to water and food ecosystems, which offers a two-way medium of communication between farmers and scientists.236238239240241242243244248Breakout Room 6: Food Systems Changes for Improved Water Security What actions in next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion Topic? • Water conservation and reduced water use in agriculture will be essential while minimizing water waste via flood irrigation methods. • Adopting modern irrigation techniques such as drip or sprinkler irrigation. • Measuring soil moisture levels to maintain healthy crops without excess irrigation will increase productivity. • Phasing out of water intensive crops (like sugarcane) and switch to horticultural agriculture • Developing farmer capacity to use improved irrigation systems, mobile applications and digitizing of the sector. • Providing incentives for farmers and Water Users Associations to conserve water. • Improving extension services in both water and agricultural sector. • Increasing involvement of the private sector in the agricultural system. • Empowering women in the agricultural system. • Crop changes with economic water productivity in mind especially for farmers. • Planting large agricultural lands with the same crop to conserve agricultural inputs What contributions will you or your organisation make and why does this matter? • Inserting sensors in the soil to monitor crop health and soil moisture and provide irrigation scheduling to reduce irrigation water. • Gated irrigation as a replacement for drip irrigation, which may be too expensive for small farmers, assist them to switch from sugarcane to horticultural crops (herbs and spices). • Developing an action plan from the Arab Water Strategy promoting IWRM and water governance. • Capacity building of farmers and water professionals • Investing in post harvesting infrastructure- multi-system water (fishing – agriculture). • Promoting water energy food nexus integration through pilot projects. • Assessing how water security and food self-sufficiency are connected. • Irrigation, by farmers, at night to reduce evaporation losses. • Promoting and supporting water-energy-food nexus innovators by scaling up and out their solutions to produce more food with less water and energy through the MENA Regional Innovation Hub. • Promoting and introducing irrigation technologies to farmers to achieving water saving and account for that through water accounting and governance.237238239240241242243244245246248249250Breakout Room 1: There were no substantial differences in participants’ perspectives on the provided solutions. However, each participant provided his/her insight from his/her background. Participants working in academic institutions provided research-based solutions, while the approach by private sector participants sought to contribute to water security via encouraging sustainable development projects. Participants working in agriculture related institutions felt that the role of NGOs and private sector companies should be more dynamic as they have different exposure and approaches than the government, thus increasing the potential for outreach of these projects. Breakout Room 2: While there was overall agreement on the potential of institutional coordination and policy coherence to jointly improve water and food security; there was a small debate on the sidelines regarding the possibility to use economic instruments, such as informal or formal trading of water use rights in Egypt, and on the possibility of paying farmers for using less water; with the idea possibly related to trading savings, i.e. water allocated but not needed within a season or sub-season, within a permit. There were also questions regarding the water-intensive crops that are currently irrigated in Egypt, including rice in the Delta and sugarcane. Should these crops be continued, noting an entire industry is connected to that? Can agronomic practices and yet more advanced seed technologies reduce water use of these crops? Or should they be stopped to push back against growing water scarcity and accelerate a stronger nutrition focus of national crop production? Breakout Room 3: Participants felt that considering social aspects of water solutions would make them more effective than solutions that only consider technological solutions. This would involve improving social cohesion and recognizing the importance of community and cross-sectoral participation in policymaking and decision-making processes. Some participants also highlighted the importance of actions at the farmer-level and case-specific solutions in addition to technological innovations to create small-scale successful cases that can then be streamlined. All participants recognized the inequity in access to information and finance at the farm level. Some participants also argued that rural communities are already very cohesive and make decisions collectively, with capacity building enhancing better collaboration. The majority of the participants agreed that both an enhanced connection between government bodies and decision-makers as well as joint ventures could contribute to better land management and by extension, water security and productivity. This could also decrease food waste along the crop production system. A slight area of divergence was also apparent among participants in identifying challenges to implementing solutions, with some of the opinion that funding is the main challenges while others – particularly the private sector – highlighted farmers’ lack of land ownership guarantees as a key challenge to advancement. Breakout Room 4: Climate-smart interventions are a broad topic and not much divergence was observed among participants. In general, the participants supported resilient farming solutions and discussed water productivity issues exacerbated by subsidies and divergence from the real cost to farmers under climate change. Participants also agreed that technology is not always the ultimate solution, with transformation of cultivation practices and organic agriculture also being important. While different solutions exist for similar challenges, a sole focus on technologies may cause problems in other areas. Incorporating agroecological zoning in resource planning for suitable cropping specific to soil and climate in the agricultural land was also put forward as important to incorporate. Breakout Room 5: Participants generally agreed on the following: • The need for capacity building in digital agriculture literacy amongst users of digital solutions. • Identifying end-users’ needs and the necessary data to improve their practices and decision-making support. Breakout Room 6: There was a discussion between participants about changing crop pattern regarding switching from water intensive crops like Sugarcane to others less intensive like Horticulture. Participant noted that a large industry (more than 20 firms) was connected to sugarcane production, suggesting the crop has a high economic value even though it uses a lot of water. Replacing sugarcane would require further studying and detailed analysis of its social and economic impacts.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Poll-1.pnghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Poll-2.pnghttps://egyptssp.ifpri.info/2021/04/05/unfss-independent-dialogue-in-egypt-the-role-of-water-security-for-food-systems-transformation-19-apr-2021/https://www.ifpri.org/ifpri-unfss-2021https://wle.cgiar.org/event/unfss-independent-dialogue-egypt

2021-05-05 08:06:34205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/9702/91

865

Ireland strongly supports the call for a ‘people’s summit’ and a ‘solutions summit’. Ireland has prioritised the seven principles of engagement as the overarching framework for the planning and preparation of its four National Dialogues. This will ensure a people and solutions focus throughout the national level engagement in the Summit process. The National Dialogues coincide with the launch for public consultation of Ireland’s draft Agri-food Strategy to 2030. This new 10-year Strategy has been developed using a food systems approach, making Ireland one of the first countries in the world to implement this approach in national level agriculture and food planning. Ireland is committed to maximising the contribution of the four National Dialogues to the future sustainability of Ireland’s food system. The Dialogues will provide an opportunity for all food system actors and stakeholders, from farmers and fishers to consumers, to learn more about Ireland’s food system, build a shared understanding of the challenges and the opportunities we face, and enable us to work together to address them. The outcomes of the National Dialogues will be considered in finalising the draft 2030 Agri-food Strategy.The following are some examples of how Ireland’s National Dialogues reflect specific aspects of the seven principles of engagement: 1. Act with urgency Ireland has responded to the call for urgent action by launching a series of four National Dialogues. These coincide with a public consultation on the draft 2030 Agri-food Strategy. This coherence allows for a comprehensive consultation on the future of Ireland’s food system in the shortest possible time. 2. Commit to the Summit Ireland has identified the National Dialogues as a central part of its strategic engagement with the Summit. Ireland has demonstrated its commitment to the Summit by aligning the National Dialogues with the national agriculture and food planning process to develop its Agri-food Strategy to 2030. 3. Be respectful Through the involvement of a wide and diverse range of food systems actors and stakeholders in the National Dialogues, Ireland is ensuring that everyone has an equal opportunity to contribute to the discussion on the future sustainability of Ireland’s food system. We are all part of Ireland’s food system, and so we must respect and listen to all participants. 4. Recognise complexity To reflect the public consultation on its draft Agri-food Strategy to 2030, Ireland has created a series of National Dialogues to discuss the complex and interlinked social, environmental and economic challenges and opportunities we face. 5. Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity Ireland’s Food Systems Summit Steering Committee, an inter-departmental group tasked with coordinating Ireland’s involvement in the Summit, has proactively engaged multiple food systems stakeholder groups and provided regular briefings on Ireland’s participation in the Summit Action Tracks and the National Dialogues.Cont. In selecting participants to be involved in the various panel discussions, the Steering Committee actively sought experts from across the entire food system, from civil society, private and public sectors, primary producer organisations, research and academia, youth etc. Ireland created a dedicated webpage for the National Dialogues, and advertised the Dialogues widely through multiple media platforms and partner organisations. To facilitate the broadest possible engagement during the Dialogues, Ireland live-streamed each event on multiple platforms, including YouTube, Twitter and Facebook. Participation was further encouraged through questions and answer, which could be submitted before the event to a dedicated email address, or submitted during the event in real-time using Sli.do. 6. Complement the work of others The Steering Committee has actively consulted with, supported and participated in the many Independent Dialogues that have been held in Ireland since the start of the Summit’s Dialogue process. In addition, Ireland will incorporate the official feedback from all Independent Dialogues held in Ireland into its final synthesis report, to ensure the views and opinions of all food systems actors and stakeholders are recorded and reflected in the final outcomes of the National Dialogues. 7. Build trust By ensuring the widest possible engagement, and respectfully listening to and answering questions on the most important and challenging areas of our food system, Ireland will look to recognise and respond to the concerns raised during our discussions. We will focus on solutions that can play a role in the continued enhancement of the sustainability of our food system, to reassure all stakeholders of our shared commitment to future sustainability.

No

234238239240241242243244245246248249250Ireland’s first National Dialogue focused on ‘Sustainable Food Systems and Ireland’s 2030 Agri-food Strategy’. The Dialogue was opened with a key note address by Dr Martin Frick, Deputy Special Envoy for the Food Systems Summit. Dr Frick stressed the need for urgent action to deliver the 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). He highlighted the potential for sustainable food systems to help address the complex and interlinked challenges and create opportunities for enhanced health and nutrition; climate action and GHG emissions reduction; biodiversity and ecosystem restoration; and improved livelihoods – ‘agriculture is part of the problem as well as part of the solution’. Dr Frick introduced the UN Food Systems Summit as a ‘People’s Summit’ and a ‘Solutions Summit’, and stressed the importance of the Food Systems Summit Dialogues to the success of the Summit and the future sustainability of our food systems. The opening address was followed by two separate panel discussions. The first Panel discussion focused on ‘Ireland’s Food Systems Approach: A view from Home and Internationally’. Ireland’s draft 2030 Agri-Food Strategy has been developed using a ‘food systems approach’ which takes account of the links between policies for food, climate and environment, and health, as well as the role of all players in the food value chain in realising a future vision. The second panel addressed ‘Environmental and Economic Sustainability: Synergies and Trade-offs’. The central vision for the draft 2030 Agri-Food Strategy is that Ireland will become a world leader in Sustainable Food Systems (SFSs) over the next decade. Sustainability in its three dimensions – economic, environmental, and social – is at the heart of this vision. The panel discussed the synergies and trade-offs between economic and environmental sustainability in the context of this objective. Both panels were followed by a dedicated questions and answers session. Details of both panel discussions and the questions raised by participants are provided below.235238239240241242243244245246248249250251- Ireland has a unique food system with many opportunities and challenges to improved sustainability. - Ireland has a strong international reputation as a producer of high-quality, safe and sustainable food and drink. - Ireland has strong sustainability credentials, which have been independently verified (relatively low dairy and beef carbon footprint per unit). - Ireland faces sustainability challenges over the next 10 years to 2030 and urgent action is needed by all food systems stakeholders. - Economic development, particularly in the dairy sector post-quota, has had an impact on environmental sustainability. - Monitoring and accountability of sustainability targets along the entire food supply chain is essential to improving the sustainability of Ireland’s food system. - It is in the interest of all food systems actors and stakeholders to continuously improve the sustainability of Ireland’s food system. - Primary producers and food industry stakeholders are ‘up for the challenge’ of food systems sustainability. - This ‘transition-by-design’ can only be achieved through an industry wide shift towards more sustainable production and consumption practices, facilitated by a combination of sustainability solutions and supports. - There is an urgency to addressing the challenges we face, particularly the climate and biodiversity emergencies. - Blaming one part of the food system over another is not constructive, and we should focus on moving together towards a more sustainable food system. - The draft 2030 Strategy, which has been carefully developed using an inclusive food systems approach, provides a strategic framework for action.236238239240241242243244245246248249250251See attached report for full feedback on Panel A (exceeds 3600 characters)236238239240241242243244245246248249250251See attached report for full feedback on Panel B (exceeds 3600 characters)237238239240241242243244246248249250251While there was broad recognition by all stakeholders of the urgent need to improve the sustainability of Ireland’s food system, there were diverging opinions on the fundamentals of how we move towards a more sustainable food system by 2030. Divergence was noted in the following main areas: - What is a sustainable food system – what is the correct balance between social, environmental and economic sustainability? - How sustainable is Ireland’s food system today – divergent views on the environmental, social and economic sustainability of Ireland’s food system. - How do we achieve a more sustainable food system by 2030 – e.g. how do we simultaneously achieve greater environmental and social sustainability while ensuring economic sustainability for all stakeholders – highlighting the challenge of adopting a holistic food systems approach, as well as the potential for delivering multiple objectives across the three pillars of sustainability.

2021-05-05 09:02:18205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/9820/91

903

Ireland strongly supports the call for a ‘people’s summit’ and a ‘solutions summit’. Ireland has prioritised the seven principles of engagement as the overarching framework for the planning and preparation of its four National Dialogues. This will ensure a people and solutions focus throughout the national level engagement in the Summit process. The National Dialogues coincide with the launch for public consultation of Ireland’s draft Agri-food Strategy to 2030. This new 10-year Strategy has been developed using a food systems approach, making Ireland one of the first countries in the world to implement this approach in national level agriculture and food planning. Ireland is committed to maximising the contribution of the four National Dialogues to the future sustainability of Ireland’s food system. The Dialogues will provide an opportunity for all food system actors and stakeholders, from farmers and fishers to consumers, to learn more about Ireland’s food system, build a shared understanding of the challenges and the opportunities we face, and enable us to work together to address them. The outcomes of the National Dialogues will be considered in finalising the draft 2030 Agri-food Strategy.The following are some examples of how Ireland’s National Dialogues reflect specific aspects of the seven principles of engagement: 1. Act with urgency Ireland has responded to the call for urgent action by launching a series of four National Dialogues. These coincide with a public consultation on the draft 2030 Agri-food Strategy. This coherence allows for a comprehensive consultation on the future of Ireland’s food system in the shortest possible time. 2. Commit to the Summit Ireland has identified the National Dialogues as a central part of its strategic engagement with the Summit. Ireland has demonstrated its commitment to the Summit by aligning the National Dialogues with the national agriculture and food planning process to develop its Agri-food Strategy to 2030. 3. Be respectful Through the involvement of a wide and diverse range of food systems actors and stakeholders in the National Dialogues, Ireland is ensuring that everyone has an equal opportunity to contribute to the discussion on the future sustainability of Ireland’s food system. We are all part of Ireland’s food system, and so we must respect and listen to all participants. 4. Recognise complexity To reflect the public consultation on its draft Agri-food Strategy to 2030, Ireland has created a series of National Dialogues to discuss the complex and interlinked social, environmental and economic challenges and opportunities we face. 5. Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity Ireland’s Food Systems Summit Steering Committee, an inter-departmental group tasked with coordinating Ireland’s involvement in the Summit, has proactively engaged multiple food systems stakeholder groups and provided regular briefings on Ireland’s participation in the Summit Action Tracks and the National Dialogues.Contd In selecting participants to be involved in the various panel discussions, the Steering Committee actively sought experts from across the entire food system, from civil society, private and public sectors, primary producer organisations, research and academia, youth etc. Ireland created a dedicated webpage for the National Dialogues, and advertised the Dialogues widely through multiple media platforms and partner organisations. To facilitate the broadest possible engagement during the Dialogues, Ireland live-streamed each event on multiple platforms, including YouTube, Twitter and Facebook. Participation was further encouraged through questions and answer, which could be submitted before the event to a dedicated email address, or submitted during the event in real-time using Sli.do. 6. Complement the work of others The Steering Committee has actively consulted with, supported and participated in the many Independent Dialogues that have been held in Ireland since the start of the Summit’s Dialogue process. In addition, Ireland will incorporate the official feedback from all Independent Dialogues held in Ireland into its final synthesis report, to ensure the views and opinions of all food systems actors and stakeholders are recorded and reflected in the final outcomes of the National Dialogues. 7. Build trust By ensuring the widest possible engagement, and respectfully listening to and answering questions on the most important and challenging areas of our food system, Ireland will look to recognise and respond to the concerns raised during our discussions. We will focus on solutions that can play a role in the continued enhancement of the sustainability of our food system, to reassure all stakeholders of our shared commitment to future sustainability.

No

234238239240241242243244246247248249250251Ireland’s second National Dialogue focused on ‘Health and Wellbeing of People and Society’. The Dialogue was opened with a key note address by Dr David Nabarro, UN Special Envoy on COVID-19 and Senior Advisor to the UN Food Systems Summit National Dialogues. Dr Nabarro briefly outlined the ambition of the Food Systems Summit and the role of the National Dialogues in complimenting the technical discussions taking place in the Summit Action Tracks. Dr Nabarro detailed the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on global hunger and malnutrition, which is highlighting problems in local, regional and global food systems. Dr Nabarro complimented Ireland on its 2030 Agri-food Strategy, and explained that a multi-stakeholder food systems approach is the only way to build more sustainable food systems for the future. The opening address was followed by two separate panel discussions. The first Panel discussion focused on ‘Healthy Diets for all: Sustainable food systems for Safe and Nutritious food’. The draft 2030 Agri-food Strategy proposes that the issue of food and health should be brought to a new level of political and policy importance. This recommendation has been reinforced by the COVID-19 pandemic. The panel discussed what needs to be done by government, primary producers, food industry and consumers to improve the consumption of nutritious, healthy foods. The second panel addressed ‘Social Sustainability: Preserving our Communities and Culture’. The importance of achieving social sustainability is a key conclusion of the draft 2030 Agri-food Strategy. The panel discussed how local leadership, innovation and technology can combine to increase income and employment opportunities in rural and coastal areas.235238239240241242243244246247248249250251- Healthy people with access to safe and nutritious food, along with the ability to make informed choices about the food they eat, are the foundation of a healthy society. - Sustainable consumption of food is a key element of the transition to a sustainable food system and plays an important role in supporting better health outcomes for society, better outcomes for our environment and better outcomes for our economy. - Understanding consumer behaviour will be important in successfully transitioning to sustainable food consumption patterns. - Communication of both the positive and negative health impacts of foods needs to be improved. - Education is key to achieving positive behaviour change for improved nutrition and health. - The food environment is critically important to consumer behaviour, and to achieve better nutrition we must compliment communication and education with healthier food environments. - Nutrition is a key consideration for consumers when buying food. - Healthy diets are defined by their nutritional profile, and can contain all food types from whole fruits and vegetables to whole animal source foods. - Ensuring the availability and affordability of nutritious food will be key to achieving healthy and sustainable diets. - There is a growing awareness of the social and environmental benefits of locally sourced foods, which is increasing demand and creating opportunities for local supply chains. - Primary producers are more than just food producers, they play an important role in social and environmental sustainability, and they must be at the centre of the transition to a more sustainable food system. - The Draft Agri-Food Strategy 2030 commits to providing food that is safe, nutritious and appealing, trusted and valued at home and abroad.236238239240241242243244246247248249250251See attachment for details of Panel A (exceeds 3600 characters).236238239240241242243244246247248249250251See attachment for details of Panel B (exceeds 3600 characters).237238239240241242243244246247248249250251Both panels demonstrated considerable consensus across all issues discussed. While not challenged by any of the panelists, there were references made by primary producers to the justification and validity of the negative commentary surrounding food production, and the impact of the ‘policy-people disconnect’ of some EU policies on the social sustainability of rural Ireland.

2021-05-06 11:32:53204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/2887/93

151507625876411531414329240161711031352321243619163154

The event was organized to convene between 100-150 guests to ensure the most diverse exchanges on the selected theme. The theme has been selected as a cross-cutting issue to the Summit and to generate some conversation outcomes across the Action Tracks. Each participant was encouraged to engage in a multi-stakeholder process and for each discussion to touch on the following points: • What is needed to advance innovation in an inclusive way via data and digital systems? • What is needed to advance innovation in an inclusive way via science and technology? • What is needed to build national and regional innovation systems/clusters? • What types of societal and institutional innovations are needed to build leadership and improve scale?After the opening remarks and fire starter panel, participants were divided into sub “tables” in their own breakout rooms to discuss their topics and report back to the main room. There was a moderator and rapporteur in each breakout room to ensure everyone had an opportunity to be heard and voice opinions. Points of divergence were heard and noted in an open and productive manner.1) If breakout rooms are a part of your event. Ensure to have greeters in each breakout room to ease the start of the conversation and ensure guests are not left alone in a room. 2) Arrange for your rapporteur forms to follow the FSDs gateway feedback form to ease the reporting back and ensure the principles of engagements are adequately covered.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Innovation has been identified as a cross cutting lever of change for the Food Systems Summit. Communities of interest were grouped around the following during the dialogue: • Carbon pricing & measuring • Precision agriculture • Renewables • Food loss and waste • Oceans/Horticulture/Livestock/Agroforestry/Crops • Nutrition • Access to Market, especially for SMEs • Innovative food product development Some challenges explored include: • Scaling the technology adoption curve especially on last mile delivery for farmers and consumers, to positively impact food systems. • Building innovation ecosystems to incentivize, adapt and scale opportunities to enable food systems transformation, bring about systemic unlocks and mitigate against unintended consequences. • Supporting the growth of business innovation to meet the needs of different types of stakeholders and lead to food systems transformation The key issues which kept resurfacing were: • Data sharing and transparency: In order to avoid duplication of systems and data, data-sharing should be encouraged. Systems should also be transparent so as to build trust especially among farmer communities. Data interoperability is imperative. • Infrastructure: More investment in communication infrastructure is needed so no one is left behind. • Innovation hubs: Public and private sectors need to create an enabling ecosystem for innovation to thrive. • Policies: Governments and regional organisations need to set up innovation policies which will serve as catalysts and frameworks for innovative technology • Collaboration: Innovators must work with the players on the ground who would use the technology, such as farmers or consumers, during the innovation process. This will help innovations meet real needs as well as guide innovators on how to make it user-friendly.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251• Data and Digital Systems Focus on accessibility and addressing barriers to adoption – cost, communication, skill set, specificity of local and regional context. Investment in broadband infrastructure to bring the technology to those that need it. Need to look at innovation from the lens of underrepresented populations (youth, gender, indigenous populations). A solution – Public investment in rural connectivity and communication platforms. Availability of platforms to disseminate data (smart phones, infrastructure) to food system actions in an efficient manner. We need to address the digital divide. The poor, disadvantaged communities need access to digitalization – from smart phones to digital devices/smart cards etc that can help them receive market access (e,g, in determining payment for environmental services). • Scientific and Technological Innovation Communication of technology to smallholder farmers calls for improved infrastructure. Application of science is the issue. Issues of language and communication, extension service, field experiments, funding and government support is needed. There needs to be inclusion, active engagement, collaboration, and empowering of the users including youth, women, and local communities/beneficiaries. A need for a Platform that brings different stakeholders together and for broader interactions and transparency in implementing solutions. We need to demystify the sector and the innovation that is happening, allow people to see and understand it. Bring policy-makers to the innovators. • Building National and Regional Innovation Ecosystems There must be a policy environment that enables innovation to come to forefront and government/institutional leadership. The role start-ups play is of great value. For instance, one large multi-national works closely with start-ups on packaging. ‘2good2 go’ aims at opening up food baskets to consumers, help consumers explaining the ‘best before date’ labelling, to reduce food waste. Youth are central to innovation and more programs are needs for students and to inspire youth globally to work in food systems. Shortened value chains are essential. We need to deliver directly to the tables of consumers and educate consumers on locally available products. Innovation is essential to getting Direct to Table. A comprehensive approach to the whole value chain is needed, in order to guide the consumers to the choices, and also link it to the social protection programmes in order not to leave anyone behind. Lack of capacity, both in companies but also within overnments, is a problem. There is a need for a more catalytic change for food testing, food marketing etc. We need to have all that in the countries, especially, low income countries. The need for intensifying of public and private partnerships to put forward the agenda through investment across multiple areas and aspects and innovating the ways where the investment is redirected, e.g. packaging etc. is needed. The investments of governments in healthcare is difficult to change, but momentum is needed in order to shift the focus to “health for care” instead of “healthcare", as food is really impacting the health of the population. • Societal and Institutional Innovations to build Leadership and Improve Scale Learning and sharing best practices will contribute to scalability. Regional Economic Commissions have a role and should be doing more. We need to discuss issues of other key sectors: livestock, fisheries, forestry. Also there is a need for interconnection among all the components and at all levels236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251• Data and Digital Systems In order to advance data and digital systems innovation, there is a need first of all for user-centered innovation – innovation generated from the ordinary man’s needs and then developed by the technical person for the market. This means that at the interim stages of innovation development, the potential users must be involved directly so it is better placed to meet reality and offers a human-centered design. Such innovations must be adapted to the local user’s language, but end users must also have some capacity development to understand the technologies available. Digital SPS tools help move agricultural products along the value chain across borders. Blockchain tools can be useful, for example, in digitalizing seed supply chains. The private sector needs to collaborate as data competition impedes effective collaboration. Data sharing willingness/capacity and interoperability were big impediments – on the part of farming communities adopting these innovations. We must develop continental, regional and country frameworks for agricultural digitalization with a component on internal & external data sharing.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251• Scientific and Technological Innovation There is a need for “supply chain thinking” in inclusive science and technology innovation. This must go from researchers and innovators all the way to consumers. We need to understand how science and technology impacts labour so that those people affected can be trained to acquire the necessary new skills. Labour, price and access must be taken into consideration when looking at scientific and technological innovation. Cooperation and collaboration is critical. Government, science and industry need to come together and they must engage with the farming community to address current issues. Enabling policies and increased funding for national research institutions will enhance output. Private research institutes and foundations should connect to carry out more research in an accountable manner and with all due diligence. Research must be demand-driven. Recognize the importance of establishing platforms with an inclusive atmosphere and a multidisciplinary approach in pre-competitive spaces such as innovation hubs. Stakeholders, such as farmers, students, government representatives, NGOs, and companies, can be brought in early to see the development and potential of innovations which in turn works to build trust among them.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251• Building National and Regional Innovation Ecosystems There is a need for frameworks that involve policy incentives, smart partnerships, farmer communities especially in the design process of innovations and investment. Financing schemes have to be tri-partite to be measurable and instead of providing funding to individual farmers, cooperatives should be formed and given access to these funds. Blended finance is essential to drive innovation. This would guarantee knowledge and capacity sharing. Also, there is a need to harmonize the risk approval process at national, regional and even global levels in order to speed up dissemination of information and not reinvent the regulatory approval wheel each time. Different regulatory bodies must build a level of trust with each other. Bringing together partners at a regional and global level is promising. We can promote the creation of a food “Silicon Valley” which will attract multidisciplinary talent, operate efficiently and promote out-of-the-box thinking. The formation of national and regional innovation hubs will also promote cross-pollination of ideas and technology. These hubs enable active knowledge transfer between researchers, business, government and farmers.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251• Societal and Institutional Innovations to build leadership and improve scale Multistakeholder partnerships are key. When all stakeholders are engaged, then the incentive structure of different agents is distinct and becomes better discernible. Donor coordination in developing countries is also key, otherwise different donors push different solutions, none of which become possible to take to scale so we must identify locally those projects that would benefit most from being scaled up. Donor coordination in developing countries is also key. Create spaces for transparent dialogues between farmers, consumers and authorities. Consumers need to be educated on the innovations used and the science behind everything to trust the farmers. Systems to provide data for smallholders to allow them to aggregate to sell products and export are also essential. Farm clustering and consolidation through which farmers are encouraged to reduce operation costs and increase incomes. While innovations are often triggered by societal stimulations, governments have a role to play in providing the guarantees and financial safety nets that investors require. Each innovation requires a support structure.237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251• Mitigation against the unintended consequences of data circulation and use, and digital misuse, possibly forms a risk for agricultural producers. • Proposing inclusive digital solutions means first and foremost ensuring that the digital infrastructure is universally accessible. • One size does not fit all. There is a need to respect local needs, capacity, particularly in developing geographies. • Private sector is not viewed as a partner. It can be perceived as too focused on capital or profit whereas anti-profit view is a component of culture, research community, and ecosystems. These need to be bridged to get effective innovation happening. • Policies can sometimes be the obstacle, not the pace of innovation or willingness of companies to change.

2021-05-06 12:18:56204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/8490/97101179187196

9207443371771531415321361143011312322410

The Dialogue was organized according to the UNFSS’ Principles of Engagement. Participants were introduced to the summit vision, objectives and action tracks. To ensure that participants were respectful, rules of engagement were set at the beginning of the dialogue. In recognizing complexity, the dialogue focused on water’s transformative role in food systems. The objective was to bring the discussion on food and water systems in a changing climate to the global policy level and to provide tangible inputs into the discussion of the UNFSS. To embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity, the Central Asia dialogue was open to a wide range of stakeholders in the water, energy, food, environment and related sectors ranging from intergovernmental organizations; regional, national and local government departments/entities, development partners; non-governmental organizations; the private sector, research for development organizations; academia; farmers’ groups; and networks. As per agreed rule within UNFSS, we introduced a plenary session comprising of global and regional speakers who provided introduction and welcoming to the dialogue. The Dialogue was conducted under the Chatham House Rule, where participants were free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, could be revealed.The Dialogue was organized with a focus on developing contributions to the FSS and elaborating pathways toward food systems transformation contributing to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The choice of focus on water security for food systems transformation very much addressed the lack of the direct attention to water within the UNFSS structure. The participation of multiple stakeholders was encouraged by bringing together a diverse group of actors in addition to those that typically engage in the area of water, food security, and nutrition. The Dialogue invitation was sent across actors in research and academia, international financial institutions, farmers at various scales, private sector, etc. Interpretation (English-Russian) was available during plenary sessions, while breakout room discussion facilitators were encouraged to hear from all participants in both English and Russian. The Feedback from the breakout discussion opened the door to questions or comments from participants. Participants were four times engaged in live polls (via Menti) during the dialogue. Breakout room discussion topics covered varying areas and topics within water security for food systems transformation, including both more technical and more policy-oriented topics.We opted for a 'by invitation only' event conducted under Chatham House rules. While this contributed to establishing a safe space for all to discuss and engage freely, it also limited inclusivity to some extent. Next time, we may consider having an open invitation event and not restricting discussion to Chatham House rules. This would allow for great live social media reporting and post-event outreach using specific speaker quotes etc. It is recommended to set the stage early on regarding the ‘purpose’ of the Dialogue by explaining the UNFSS’ objectives and vision and action tracks, particularly for the benefit of participants who may be unfamiliar. This event was an Independent Dialogue with a national focus, thus providing interpretation (English-Arabic) definitely opened the door for contributions and engagement where language may have been a barrier. Engaging participants’ active audio-visual interventions by way of live polls and encouraging chat box discussions, actions or comments and questions, etc, increased participants’ involvement.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246248249250251Central Asia is considered one of the dynamic growing and developing region in the world. Population growth, socio-economic development, climate change, hydropower development as well as changing consumption patterns of the population contribute to increased demand for water, energy and food. Water scarcity presents one of the greatest challenges for the region as its population grows so does the need to create more jobs, produce more food, more energy - yet water resources are limited. Irrigated agriculture consumes approximately 80% of all abstracted water in Central Asian countries. The region is well known for its history of mismanagement of water, energy, and land resources that have had widely publicized negative effects on water availability throughout the region. The Aral Sea, a large inland lake, almost disappeared as a result of diverting large portions of the Amu Darya and Syr Darya River flows to expand irrigated agriculture (due to in-efficient irrigation and irrational cropping pattern). Balancing the sectoral needs for agricultural production and the generation of energy through hydropower is challenging, as the transboundary water flow is disrupted. Climate change and population increases will put additional stress on the region’s water resources with 10 to 30% less water available in the aforementioned rivers by 2050. Solutions for sustainable food production through irrigated agriculture require a systemic approach to assess benefits and trade-offs across sectors. Here, the water–energy–food (WEF) nexus has become an important concept in natural resource management. It has been conceptualized to analyze linkages and trade-offs between the three sectors, across temporal and spatial scales. Taking into account, numerous challenges facing Central Asian countries to achieve security in all three sectors of WEF, application of a 'Nexus' approach allows for mutually beneficial responses that are based on an understanding of synergies between water, energy and agricultural systems policies and practices. This regional dialogue therefore seek to unpack the questions: how can food systems be localized and transformed in a water-constrained region such as Central Asia in a manner that acknowledges WEF nexus linkages in climate uncertainty? The UN Food Systems Summit Central Asia dialogue highlighted seven key thematic areas on which participants were required to engage in an interactive manner that allowed for small group discussion, collective brainstorming, and agenda-setting. The thematic areas covered by breakout groups were: 1) Moving towards low carbon energy for food production; 2) Climate change impacts on water and food security; 3) Policy coherence and institutional coordination in water, food, energy and climate change that operationalize the WEF nexus; 4) Advancing technical WEF models, tools and frameworks for decision making at multiple scales; 5) Enhancing resilience of water system across multi-sector (agriculture, domestic, industry and environment) demands; 6) Socio-Economic Benefits of WEF Nexus and Community approaches to operationalize the WEF nexus. Expected key outcome of this dialogue was getting involved and sharing the views of Central Asian stakeholders on sustainable irrigated foods systems transformation and importance of WEF nexus under climate uncertainties. Reaching a common understanding of the challenges and finding local solutions to the challenges facing food security/water systems transformation along with attendant issues of water security for a range of other sectors were explored.235238239240241242243244245246248249250251Water scarcity presents one of the greatest challenge for the region as its population grows so does the need to create more jobs, produce more food, more energy - yet water resources are limited. It is negatively affecting the agriculture, energy, health, environment and other sectors, further exacerbated by the dramatic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Together, climate change and population increases will put additional stress on the region’s water resources - with 10 to 30% less water available in the Amu Darya and Syr Darya rivers by 2050. Managing the water risks in the food system is going to be of highest priority in the future for food system of Central Asia. Rising temperatures will pose major challenges for the region's major crops such as wheat, rice, and cotton, as well as challenging research on new crop varieties and crop production systems. The production of relatively low-income crops such as cotton and wheat will become less profitable due to high transportation costs. The participants of the dialogue stressed that the WEF nexus approach requires a shared vision for water and food security in the Central Asian region, and one that is facilitated by improved policy coherence and institutional coordination. Stronger collaboration and cooperation across and between governments and its multiple tiers is needed to achieve this, along with strengthening policy synergies with the private sector and civil society. The strong interdependency between water, energy, food and climate change in arid and semi-arid regions such as Central Asia calls for robust interventions, i.e. an approach that integrates management and governance across sectors, and where conventional policy and decision-making in ‘silos’ gives way to an approach that reduces tradeoffs and builds synergies across sectors in line with the global UN SDGs and climate targets. There is required to develop the long term regional limited planning for water allocation between sectors. Regional programs like the regional program for the basin of the Aral Sea is still rather sectoral and has only limited nexus elements. Also, the problem of the original programs is that they are developed mainly by water and ecology experts without referring to knowledge from other sectors like energy and agriculture. There is a need to create enabling environment, formal and informal platforms to discuss WEF nexus at national and regional level and highlight its importance via mass media in a nutshell publicize nexus to maximum extent. Regional and International organizations together with development partners should play important role in this process in upcoming years. Participants agreed that governments, researchers, and development institutions should focus more effort into capacity/knowledge building for farmers who might benefit from implementing low carbon technologies in their production, as well as greater investment in the sector. Because such technologies are new and may involve expensive initial implementation, there is hesitation to adopt, but in the long run such technologies could improve water and energy efficiency while improving farm-level outcomes. Additionally, stakeholders should push for the implementation of conservation farming policies, which will result in better land use while reducing emissions. For WEF Nexus approaches to result in better socio-economic outcomes, first, national and research institutions should put more effort into disseminating and implementing research findings in collaboration with government and with support from international research/education organizations. For example, data on water management could greatly improve through micro-level assessments (e.g. household surveys), and tools/models could be developed so policy making entities have a greater base of evidence. Additionally, with help from the research sector, governments should develop national strategies and legal frameworks for developing bioeconomy in the region, which currently do not exist. Finding ways to manage the water-energy-food nexus will be key then in ensuring a sustainable supply of water to the food system.236238239240243244245246248249250251Moving towards low carbon energy for food production Participants agreed on the importance of completing projects that expand low carbon irrigation (e.g. gravity and solar irrigation, repairing inefficient infrastructure), carried out by government/development organizations like the World Bank with research institution support. Stakeholders should focus more on knowledge/capacity building among farmers who may not see immediate benefits of implementing low carbon technologies. Finally, governments/stakeholders should push for conservation farming techniques to reduce agricultural emissions across the board. The process of transitioning to low-carbon agriculture, especially where infrastructure improvements are needed, will be expensive. Therefore, a huge investment push is needed.236238239240242243244245246248249250251Climate change impacts on water and food security Central Asia is a region that is highly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change – which is negatively affecting the water, agriculture, energy, trade, health, environment, and other sectors. Transitioning from competition among sectors to cooperation – including across the water-energy-food nexus - will be a vital part of the story of food system transformation in the region. Global and regional climatic changes are directly affecting the hydrological regime of river flow and food security in Central Asia. The group has concluded that taking into account climate change, there is required to develop regional rational water resource use as well as water protection concept. It is recommended to develop and adopt water, food, energy and environmental doctrines of Central Asia in the context of climate change. There is strong necessity to develop cooperation between national and regional research and academic institutions in the field of climate change. Taking into account COVID 19, it is necessary to improve the program "Food security and nutrition" in all countries of Central Asia. Strong attention should be directed towards introduction of water-saving technologies (drip, sprinkling, subsurface and other micro-irrigation methods) for irrigation of agricultural crops; It is necessary to develop regional cooperation on prevention of natural disasters (mudflows, floods, etc.) and protection of water bodies; Develop joint research programs on intensive technologies, the creation of drought-resistant crops, agricultural diversification, rotational water use and other innovative approaches for the rational use of water and land resources; It is necessary to create a unified database platform (DB) and develop an information system. These aspects have been proposed by the members of the group and ways in which progress could be assessed, it has been indicated necessity to develop and implement a monitoring system to assess the actions taken.236238239240241243244245246248249250251Policy coherence and institutional coordination in water, food, energy and climate change that operationalize the WEF nexus It has been concluded that there are exist relevant institutions and organizations at the regional and national level who shall consider WEF nexus in their operations. One of such structure at the regional level is considered International Fund for saving the Aral Sea (IFAS). However, IFAS hasn’t fully integrated the full competencies for the sectoral cooperation. This organization shall and can unite different sectors and develop regional WEF nexus programs and initiatives. Setting correctly at the Regional level policy coherence and institutional coordination provides good conditions to move it at the national levels. Participants has also highlighted the role of academic and research institutions who generates knowledge for policy through applied research. There has been also stressed importance of bringing private sector, specifically bilateral interstate projects conducted by private companies or consortia. It was admitted that existing structures, they undergo challenges related to the fact that currently developed plans for the management for the incorporating WEF nexus are merrily of national level and focused on national interest. Regional programs like the program for the basin of the Aral Sea is still rather sectoral and has only limited nexus elements. Also, the problem of the original programs is that they are developed mainly by water and ecology expert without referring to knowledge from other sectors like energy and agriculture. To overcome these challenges there is a need for ranging more regional awareness at the level of decision makers about the need of WEF nexus approaches. Also, there's the need for more knowledge to support the limited available human resources to implement such an approach to develop long term plans. Participants of the session highlighted that currently WEF nexus mainly applied within on-going projects and working groups on WEF nexus also established and promoted by donor supported projects. This donor supported initiatives are not sustainable in the long run and there is a need stronger engagement from Central Asian government representatives and they should feel that outcomes of WEF nexus improve inter-sectoral cooperation and help to develop coordinated policies on WEF nexus at national and regional level in Central Asia. There is a need to create enabling environment, formal and informal platforms to discuss WEF nexus at national and regional level and highlight it’s importance via mass media in a nutshell publicize nexus to maximum extent. Regional and International organizations together with development partners should play important role in this process in upcoming years. It was a highlighted and that's there is a need for systematic capacity building which the participating organizations could offer. Secondly there is a need for platforms for leading discussion on the intergovernmental and multi stakeholder levels where participating institutions interest to facilitate.236238239240241242243245246248250251Advancing technical WEF models, tools and frameworks for decision making at multiple scales The group participants highlighted that WEF models, tools and frameworks will work for the decision makers when the data which is going to be used for modelling is accurate and trust is established from the source of data. From the practical perspective, WEF models are becoming more complex, expanding its narrative, and require whole institutions to code and run them. This induces high requirements to a technical background of the personnel, working with WEF models, and also a technical background of the policy-related personnel, who will be analyzing the results. Group indicated that most of the staff based in the provinces, districts and local on-farm irrigation systems requires to go through the trainings. There is a need in investing in stakeholders and building relevant knowledge and understanding of the importance of the WEF framework. The stakeholder community working under the WEF framework needs to have a clear sense of ownership of the process (“understand and accept it”) and be actively involved throughout its implementation in order to reach necessary results. The WEF process is still at its preliminary stage of application and none of the existing stakeholders in the region have the power to trigger its wider application. So, finding that entry point both in Uzbekistan and in the region would stimulate the wider acceptance of WEF.236238239240241243244245246248249250251Enhancing resilience of water system across multi-sector (agriculture, domestic, industry and environment) demands The group highlighted that the legislations in the region does not clearly state the “rights” of ecosystems to water. There is no clear methodology for assessing and recording ecosystem water requirements. There is weak coordination of actions between sectors of the economy in terms of meeting environmental needs. The existing principles of water allocation provide for releases for deltas and ecosystems, but they are implemented in reality according to the residual principle - therefore, there is no guarantee of stable water supply for ecosystems. Active work is underway to develop environmental codes in each countries. A number of projects are being implemented to develop clear environmental legislation and test innovative methods and approaches to improve the sustainability of protected areas (UNDP and GEF, GIC, USAID, CAREC, etc.). Water conservation programs in agriculture are being actively implemented, as well as the transition to less water-intensive and more productive crops - however, how the saved water will be used is not yet clear. The creation of agriculture clusters should be supported and developed, including the creation of cross-border clusters. There are reclamation expeditions in the countries that monitor the processes of land degradation (salinization, groundwater levels, the state of the drainage network) - it is necessary to strengthen the technical potential of these services in order to move from simple monitoring to real management of reclamation regimes. Environmental portals are being created in the countries - it is necessary to accelerate their development in order to bring up to date the process of exchange of environmental and water management information between all sectors. It is necessary to raise the status of protected areas of groundwater deposits, groundwater monitoring should become part of ecosystem management.236238239240241243244245248249250251Socio Economic Impacts of WEF nexus: The main way stakeholders can implement WEF nexus approaches to improve socio economic outcomes is by having the research sector generate up-to-date data and scientific evidence that governments can use to improve food and energy production, water saving, transboundary water management, sanitation, and health. Markers for the success of such initiatives would be less water conflict (including inter-farm), better water/energy use efficiency, stronger agricultural value chains and farmer incomes, more sustainably managed land, better data availability, lowered unemployment/migration, higher incomes, and improved cooperation between countries.236238239241242243244246247248249250251Community approaches to operationalize the WEF nexus The group has discussed following question in the breakout: how could be promoted equity and inclusion in WEF nexus governance to create opportunities for transformation towards more just food, water and energy systems? Participants of the discussion pointed out that communities can exert a possible influence on the policy in the field of foreign economic activity only by uniting in public professional and non-professional organizations (PA), while the organizational and legal format of such associations is determined by the legislation of each individual country. The existing role and influence of communities on the policy in the field of renewable economic activity are very different in different countries (they are at different stages of development). Therefore, action planning should be maximally adapted to the situation in each individual country. The realistic goal is to raise the status of communities in the planning and implementation of the WEF policy in the country by one step. At least to the role of an "observer", it is better to the role of a "participant in the process" with an advisory vote, ideally to the status of a "full member" of a collegial body for shaping the national policy of the WEF. The main success of the actions is effective communication between the PA and other participants in the process of forming a policy of interrelation of WEF at the state and local levels.237238239240241242243244245246248249250251During the discussion subject of “moving towards low carbon energy for food production”, participants agreed on most points, there were some areas of divergence. For example, there was constructive debate over the feasibility of widespread renewable energy implementation in agriculture (initial and long-term costs). There was also much focus on poor water and irrigation use/management as a main source of agricultural emissions, but some participants put more emphasis than others on the need for land-use changes. During the discussion subject of Community approaches to operationalize the WEF nexus, participants highlighted inconsistencies in the degree of consideration of the role of community organizations in the management of the interrelation of WEF in the legislation of the country or in regulations, procedures and mechanisms. Furthermore, there is inconsistency in the level of financing of measures to involve community based organization into the governance of the WEF nexus. Group which discussed Enhancing resilience of water system across multi-sector: the expediency was expressed to establish an exchange of information in the region on ecology and water resources and to create a unified database in these areas, since this is not organized at the proper level. Group which discussed topic advancing technical WEF models, tools and frameworks for decision making at multiple scales highlighted there is a need to move away from the competitive behavior in the transboundary planning of CA states. The potential integration of different sectors across different levels within the WEF cannot be successful without a good transboundary cooperation of Central Asian countries. Hence, advocating for a basin planning, integration of WEF-related tools and methodologies in other sectors (as IWRM for the water sector and stakeholder participation) would set the scene for a common regional vision.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Dialogue-Group-photo-1.jpghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Dialogue-Group-photo-2.jpghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Eng_Central-Asia_UNFSS_Dialogue_Concept-Note.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Rus_Central-Asia_UNFSS_Dialogue_Concept-Note_Apr.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/UNFSS-Invitation-Central-Asia-Eng-Rus.pdfhttps://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/events/unfss-independent-dialogue-in-central-asia/https://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/2021/04/innovations-and-smart-water-technologies-key-to-food-systems-transformation-in-central-asia/

2021-05-07 13:23:59205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/8634/135

13401778336068579103443101555104127100324541034416820101

The organization of the dialogue centred the rules specified in the curator’s guidelines. The preparation involved communication with the highest level of office in the state (the office of the governor) State Commissioners of Budget and Planning for Imo and Abia states. In ensuring that the principles were incorporated, we ensured that the urgency of a discourse on the food systems was communicated and that the commitment to the dialogues was ensured through clear communication to the State governors and stakeholder mobilizationThe dialogue agenda and structure reflected the principles of multi-stakeholder inclusivity, act with urgency, respectful, complement the work of others. At the meeting, the curator set the tone of the meeting by providing the context to the purpose of the meeting and encouraged participants to look at the food systems holistically as opposed to sectorally. The dialogue was also re-emphasised as a safe space for productive discussions amongst stakeholders towards a better food system.It is important to set the tone for the conversations and provide some background/context before the dialogue deliberations commence. This is because the stakeholders in the room are from a diverse range of sectors and doing this encourages collective thinking about the food systems as opposed to participants thinking of just their sector.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Before the meeting held in various regions of the country, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) commissioned a diagnostic study of the food system as it operates in the 6-geopolitical zones of the country. The diagnostic paper explored the agricultural scene, nutrition and food safety, food trade and transportation as well as external factors that affect the food systems including environmental factors, policies and plans, insecurity amongst others in the country. The diagnostic paper revealed that the South-East food system is characterized by agricultural livelihood activities such as crop production and livestock production. Food waste and loss is also high in the region leading to food insecurity, hunger and loss of income for farmers. The South-East has actively processes cash and staple crops such as rice, cassava, oil palm. Food consumption is below recommendations and diets are not diversified in the same vein, malnutrition rates are slightly higher than international average. Adoption of climate smart agricultural practices is low and the region faces climate change effects such as seasonal flooding and soil erosion. Actors involved in the food system in the South-East States include farmers and farmer groups, trader associations, processors, government, private sector, nutrition and health workers and extension (community health and agriculture) workers. The major focus of the south-east dialogue was to drive discussion on reshaping the food systems in the south east to achieve the sustainable development goals (SDGs) by 2030 taking into consideration the challenges in the system. Identifying key drivers of the food systems particular to Imo and Abia States and also making outcomes and recommendations for the advancement of the Food System in the South East and Nigeria as a whole. The focus of this meeting was achieved by an exploration of the five (5) action tracks as they pertained to the South-East. Five facilitators who are skilled in the action tracks led participants on discussions on the 5 action tracks as they relate to the South-East.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251• South East experience shocks and stresses such as flooding, soil erosion and more recently bouts of insecurity • Diets consumed in the south east is laden with starchy staples and needs to be diversified • Over 60% of the farmers in the South-East are women who are disproportionately limited in terms of access to productive resources • Consumption of healthy diets needs focus on production and availability of healthy and safe foods • Consumer education is important to instruct and inform consumers • Budgetary release of funds for capital projects is low • The South east needs to develop and implement Social Investment Programmes that take into consideration the vulnerable groups and are wide spread. • The region has active Agro-Processing Zones which farmers are encouraged to take advantage While these transformations will be a journey, we must start by taking some strategic and immediate transition steps – the suggested steps include • Development of agro processing zones and Institution of cooperatives and off taker systems for communities • Collaboration across sectors • Addressing vulnerabilities through social investment programmes • Innovation in agricultural processing e.g. hydroponics, drip irrigation and mechanization of agriculture, biotechnology and genome editing • Review of existing policies limiting access to resources e.g. the Land Tenure System/Land Use Act. Enforcement of court rulings which grants women right to inherit land • The Food supply chain needs to be shortened to reduce middlemen and ensure that farmers have adequate value for agricultural products • Improved Nutrition Education in schools, hospitals and marketplaces • Promotion of exclusive breastfeeding and appropriate complementary feeding practices • Promotion of Good Agricultural Practices including conservative use of chemicals and processing methods • Strengthen local regulatory agencies to enforce and monitor food production, processing and packaging for safer food consumption • Reduction of food losses and wastes through innovative food storage and processing methods from the point of harvest to the point of consumption • Home gardening to ensure increased access to nutritious foods all year round • Linking farmers with large markets in existing initiatives of the government such as HGSFP, Prisons and large institutions • Development of robust M&E systems that also highlights the key indicators to track development and programme implementation • Improving access to health care for all through strengthening of the primary health care system • Advocacy to government, religious leaders, key stakeholders236238243244245246247248249250251Discussion Topic [ENSURING ACCESS TO SAFER AND NUTRITIONAL FOOD FOR ALL] What actions in next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion Topic? Strand 1: Reducing hunger and inequality;  Addressing the inequalities around access to agricultural inputs by • Ensuring women and vulnerable populations have access to inputs • Land Tenure System improvement. • Provision of fertilizers and loans to rural, small holder farmers. • Access to loans for small holder farmers. • Improvement of Social Services in the rural communities and equitable distribution of farm implements and inputs  Using modern technologies to scale agricultural production  Preservation and processing of farm produce to make sure that they stand the test of time through the provision of silos and food processing factories at the local government areas.  Improved security for the farmers to curtail the Farmer/Herder clashes Strand 2: Increasing availability and affordability of nutritious foods: - Creation of public awareness on improved varieties that will yield more nutritious content e.g fortified foods and biofortified varieties - Increase in income through increased employment opportunities leading to poverty reduction - Increase in Nutrition Education and awareness to teach the importance of eating adequately - Family support for exclusive breastfeeding and complementary feeding - Planting of improved near-extinct varieties of food trees - Guidelines to advice and educate individuals on what to consume Strand 3: Ensuring Safe food: - Avoid the use of insecticides and pesticides in the cultivation and preservation of crops. - Encourage the use of organic fertilizers /manure. - Avoid the consumption of sick or dead animals. - Ensure the adherence of food safety compliance at abattoirs and markets - Consumer protection Agency should look into what food manufacturers claim. - The food outlets/vendors should be trained and retrained on best food practices - Exclusive Breast feeding which is safe for children under 6-months should be encouraged. - Provision of safe water. Strand 1: Reducing hunger and inequality;  Addressing the inequalities around access to agricultural inputs by • Ensuring women and vulnerable populations have access to inputs • Land Tenure System improvement. • Provision of fertilizers and loans to rural, small holder farmers. • Access to loans for small holder farmers. • Improvement of Social Services in the rural communities and equitable distribution of farm implements and inputs  Using modern technologies to scale agricultural production  Preservation and processing of farm produce to make sure that they stand the test of time through the provision of silos and food processing factories at the local government areas.  Improved security for the farmers to curtail the Farmer/Herder clashes Strand 2: Increasing availability and affordability of nutritious foods: - Creation of public awareness on improved varieties that will yield more nutritious content e.g fortified foods and biofortified varieties - Increase in income through increased employment opportunities leading to poverty reduction - Increase in Nutrition Education and awareness to teach the importance of eating adequately - Family support for exclusive breastfeeding and complementary feeding - Planting of improved near-extinct varieties of food trees - Guidelines to advice and educate individuals on what to consume Strand 3: Ensuring Safe food: - Avoid the use of insecticides and pesticides in the cultivation and preservation of crops. - Encourage the236239243244245246247248249250251Discussion Topic Shift to Healthy and Sustainable Consumption Patterns What actions in next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion Topic? Strand 1: Reducing hunger and inequality  Reduction of post-harvest losses through enhanced and improved storage and processing mechanisms.  Productivity should be targeted at specific crops with comparative advantage in the state. Some of them are; maize, cassava, oil palm, cashew nuts, poultry, udara, vegetables etc  Provision of hard and soft Infrastructure such as Power, Road networks, Transportation, Security, Processing Facilities, etc. Strand 2: Increasing availability and affordability of nutritious foods  Enhanced productivity through provision of mechanization by government and with the assistance of fabricators, partners and investors.  Offtake through the Home-grown School Feeding Programme (HGSFP) of the Federal Government and other programmes. Strand 3: Ensuring safe food  Efficient preservation of available foods, as well as value addition though processing for extended shelf life Cross-Cutting NIL What contributions will our organisations make?  Researchers and research organizations should uncover and validate new and hidden varieties  Government and the organized private sector should empower scientists and monitor their activities  Government should improve on Imo State’s research and development base through inter-ministerial collaboration and partnerships  Government should prioritize public-private partnerships. At the present time, the private sector and its private capital is looking to invest its resources in profitable ventures.  Government and relevant agencies should sensitize farmers and other stakeholders on nutritional benefits of healthy food, as well as consequences of unhealthy diets. This sensitization should be targeted specifically at youths and women through appropriate channels like periodic town hall meetings  The legislature should lock in policies to ensure continuity  Government should support and fund technological advancements through targeted policies. How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful?  The Imo State government has kick-started the process of developing its rural infrastructure through the Special Agro-Industrialization Processing Zones Project (SAPZ)  Underscoring of key performance indicators (KPIs) and critical players  Evolving of targeted timelines  Periodic monitoring and evaluation which can be formal and informal Some of these indicators are; Increased production Targeted Processing and Value Addition Sensitization through workshops, town-hall meetings, adverts, tv programmes Infrastructural and rural development Nutrition Security236240243244245246247248249250251Discussion Topic BOOSTING NATURE POSITIVE FOOD PRODUCTION What actions in next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion Topic? 1. Infrastructural development. 2. Establishment of Agricultural Processing Zones. 3. Strengthening of policy advocacy for a mind, policy and practice change to take place, from the traditional notion of food as a mere human need to the contemporary notion of food as a fundamental human right in Nigeria. 4. The quick passage of the Right to Food Bill (SB 240) pending before the National Assembly. 5. Intensification of Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA) practices and reforestation 6. Guaranteeing of the regeneration of our ecosystems and nature and to substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. 7. Creation of National Agricultural Development Fund. 8. Creation of effective relationship between the federal and state governments for agricultural development. What contributions will our organisations make? Our organisations will help in: i. Policy formulations and implementations. ii. Putting Legislation and enforcements. iii. Ensuring compliance: through improved budget oversight by National Assembly iv. Strengthening the policy process (Policy framework) v. Investing in new farming technology (biotechnology, Tissue Culture and Genome editing)—from better seeds to digital tools to machinery How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? • Operationalized transformative and smart partnerships. • Improvement in the Functionality and effectiveness of Food System. • Improved security-ability of farmers moving freely to their farms • Ability of Nigeria participating in global trade without challenge236241243244245246247248249250251Discussion Topic Action Track 4: Advanced Equitable Livelihoods What actions in next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion Topic? Address insecurity Resolve the difficulty in assessing land and the land tenure system Use of poor implements and farm inputs Inclusion of vulnerable population into social investment programmes What actions can be taken within the next 3 years in other to improve livelihoods? Improved security in rural areas Improvement of infrastructure at rural areas Reorientation from local to a more modern way of agriculture Credit facilities for agriculture financing Social Investment programs Revitalization of primary health care facilities Monitoring budgetary allocations to agriculture Timely release of counterpart funding from government Modern agricultural practices and maintenance of standards Reduction of postharvest losses What contributions will our organisations make? Contribution we will provide is in the area of advocacy to government and local/traditional authorities on the issues such as: 1. Land leasing for poor families and women. 2. Empowerment of government agencies like ministry of agric. to provide farm inputs and implements as well as information dissemination to farmers. 3. Provisions of starter packs and support to trained young generation farmers. 4. There should be non-governmental agencies/civil society organizations set for the monitoring of budgets from the source of release and implementation of budgetary allocation to agriculture. How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? The indicators of the success of the action will be 1. Quarterly or yearly assessment of livelihood status of the poor families and poor widows in South east Nigeria. 2. Proactive monitoring and evaluation of the extent of implementation of the inputs from various organisations in advancing and equitable livelihood supports. 3. Generating base line data of the status of livelihoods at the moment to enable build-up of strategies to advance and ensure equitable distribution of livelihood supports. 4. Training of individuals for the data collection, records and statistics on the trending of livelihood supports236242243244245246247248249250251Discussion Topic Building Resilience to Vulnerability Shock and Stress What actions in next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion Topic? • Preservation and Storage Facilities ; improving the storage facilities in the SE zones to modern and standard storing system, to accommodate more perishable food items . government should go into partnership with cooperative societies, and individuals to build storage facilities in all communities in the south east zone Government should partners with society in providing solar panel cold rooms • Climate- the government should cooperative with the metrological unit (NMETS) to monitor forecast and plan with farmers association on climatic emergencies and response such as drought and flooding, • Urban Agriculture planning; government policies should be consistence on school gardening ensuring that all schools have a garden . government to allot land in urban areas on urban agricultural farms • Agro- processing zones – making agriculture more accessible, govt should make aggregate or cluster for processing zones which will have most aspect of the food system such as production processing , storage • Off – takers a system a community-based initiative in which small and medium scale farmers produce will easily be bought by involving other stakeholders and multisector • Food distribution and Marketing strategy – govt interventions on Agriculture produce group who tax farmers heavily, and also curtail the security issues of curfew to allow identified farmers to easily distribute their goods curfew. • Home gardening sensitizing the people on the importance of home gardening for sustainable food chain • Hydroponics systems of agriculture to be encouraged such as hydro phonics, Aero phonics farming especially in urban areas with limited land • Gender mainstreaming in all policies formulation and removal of gender baise or determinants in accessing agricultural loans and land acquisitions. Gender sensitive policies in Agriculture. • SMART AGRICULTURE by farmers planting plants with shorter duration of maturity in flood prone areas or drought resistance crops in drought areas. Sensitizing farmers on climate smart practices such as cover cropping, mulching. Food tracking system – food surveillance and equitable distribution of food supplies and food data base for evidence-based intervention and policy formulation • Cooperative societies expanding registration in the cooperative societies and encouraging transparency in seedlings distribution, loans tax exemption, and price regulation of food produce by biodiversification and comparative competitions among farmers • Mechanized farming through government support to cooperative to expand farming. What contributions will our organisations make? • Supporting the Government of the South east zones on developing a Agro-processing zones • Financially supporting small and medium scale farmers through cooperatives by giving incentives and soft loans • Building up a data based to track progress in the food system of the South east zones How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? Through simple indicators such as tracking food supply, malnutrition indices in the south east, and agricultural indigenous innovations237238239240243244245246247248249250251GROUP 1 Divergences revealed include: 1. Continuous use of traditional methods of farming because some farmers trust the methods they are used to 2. Lack of modern farming implements and improved varieties from Research Institutes 3. Different levels of government attempting to do the same thing in favour of households and farmers thereby duplicating efforts and resources that could be channelled into other uses 4. Considering some farmers more important than others in the provisions inputs How to manage them: 1. Team Work 2. Policy formulation 3. Synergy 4. Partnership 5. Nutrition education and awareness GROUP 2  Sensitization and media activities should not be prioritized over primary production and processing  Conversations and brainstorming should be replicated at grassroot levels  Sincerity and political will on the part of government is key GROUP 3 The divergences are ‘healthy diet’ and ‘sustainable diet’. The members of the Global Panel (2016) recognize that “While there is no universal ‘diet quality index’, there is general agreement on what a healthy or high-quality diet should include”, [that is] “a diversity of foods that are safe and provide levels of energy appropriate to age, sex, disease status and physical activity as well as essential micronutrients.” The answer is clearly: not necessarily. It is dangerous, therefore, to unconditionally associate a healthy diet with a sustainable diet and promoting too broadly win-win scenarios. While evidence suggests that synergies can, in principle, be identified (e.g., such as reducing animal protein in meat-based diets), these are often very difficult to achieve. On the other hand, completely decoupling healthy diets from the sustainability of value chains that deliver them would also not be desirable from a food system’s, environmental and climate change perspective. In sum while synergies are feasible if we capitalize on innovations, trade-offs and hard choices are more likely to characterize the near future of food systems and it is important to understand how diets (as proxy for health) and sustainability interactions play out at different scales and in different contexts.

2021-05-07 23:07:39204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/13293/203

331331331331

Con el objetivo de difundir conocimientos actualizados y conceptos probados sobre el papel de los granos y las semillas oleaginosas en el sistema alimentario sostenible, el seminario web promoverá la perspectiva del hemisferio occidental sobre las prácticas de producción sostenible en preparación para la Cumbre de Sistemas Alimentarios de las Naciones Unidas (UNFSS) de 2021. Además de las presentaciones de expertos de renombre internacional, los debates facilitados por los líderes de la industria fomentarán la interacción de la audiencia. El contenido del webinar será publicado por el IICA como un subsidio para las discusiones técnicas y de políticas que darían forma al posicionamiento de los miembros del IICA y de la industria hacia el UNFSS. Habrá interpretación simultánea trilingüe (español, inglés y portugués). Objetivos: Compartir el conocimiento científico actual y las perspectivas de los expertos sobre el importante papel de los cereales y las semillas oleaginosas en un sistema alimentario sostenible. Explorar oportunidades y desafíos para el futuro. Público objetivo: autoridades gubernamentales, representantes de la industria, agricultores, academia y miembros de la sociedad civil de los Países Miembros del IICA.Actuar con urgencia - debida antelación en relación a la cumbre Asumir los compromisos de la Cumbre + Crear confianza- con comunicación adecuada y transparencia Ser respetuosos + Reconocer la complejidad + - por la oportunidad y acceso equivalente a todos interesados en opinar Adoptar un enfoque inclusivo de múltiples grupos de interés - a través de la representatividad adecuada a los distintos sectores Complementar la labor de los demás - asociandonos con los diversos representantes de la cadena de valorEstudiar las guías del portal de diálogos.

Yes

234238239240241242243244246248249250El papel de los cereales y las semillas oleaginosas en los sistemas alimentarios sostenibles: la perspectiva del hemisferio occidental hacia la Cumbre de Sistemas Alimentarios de las Naciones Unidas (UNFSS) de 20212352382392402412422432442462482492501. Hay que pensar la Cumbre de Sistemas Alimentarios desde el punto de vista del continente americano. 2. Los sistemas alimentarios de la región iniciaron, hace tres décadas, un proceso gradual y continuo de transformación a sistemas sostenibles y amigables con el ambiente. 3. Se destaca la importancia de comunicar los importante avances científicos y técnicos acerca de la forma de producir y comercializar a nivel mundial y cómo estos avances forman parte importante de la solución a los retos ambientales que enfrentamos. 4. Se necesita aumentar el desarrollo social, económico, siendo importante para esto el desarrollo agrícola, como generador de empleo, desarrollo sostenible, sacando a las personas de la pobreza.2362382392402412422432452462482492501. Hay que pensar la Cumbre de Sistemas Alimentarios desde el punto de vista del continente americano. En tal sentido es importante subrayar: a. La importancia del continente como máximo proveedor de recursos ecosistémicos y como máximo productor de granos y semillas oleaginosas, las cuales son esenciales para la seguridad alimentaria global y para la recuperación post pandemia; b. Que el hemisferio occidental exportó el 60% del comercio mundial de cereales, en ese sentido es líder en la temática y ante la demanda de una población que crece, deberá aumentar su producción con la tarea de utilizar menor cantidad de tierra y uso sostenible de los recursos; c. Que la agricultura, durante la pandemia, fue uno de los únicos sectores que siguió funcionando y llamativamente la mayor parte de los indicadores ambientales mejoraron; d. La agricultura familiar debe estar al centro de los sistemas alimentarios, por medio de una plataforma para dar voz a los agricultores y conformar una estrategia continental para enfrentar retos en común. 2. Los sistemas alimentarios de la región iniciaron, hace tres décadas, un proceso gradual y continuo de transformación a sistemas sostenibles y amigables con el ambiente. En tal sentido, resulta necesario: a. Ampliar la diversificación de la demanda de producciones agrícolas con nuevas tecnologías procurando mayor sostenibilidad y reducir las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero; b. La consolidación de políticas públicas eficientes para el sector agrícola en lo que se refiere a sostenibilidad, asuntos jurídicos y fiscales; c. Continuar trabajando en este proceso de mejora, de generación de conocimiento, donde es muy importante la matriz interinstitucional, el vínculo empresario, emprendedurismo, ciencia y tecnología; d. Hacer más con menos, dado que cada vez hay más presión ante el creciente aumento de la población, no solo hay que considerar la cantidad de alimentos sino su calidad, además de usar sabiamente los recursos limitados de agua, tierra, y además proteger los suelos. 3. Se destaca la importancia de comunicar los importante avances científicos y técnicos acerca de la forma de producir y comercializar a nivel mundial y cómo estos avances forman parte importante de la solución a los retos ambientales que enfrentamos. Se destaca: a. El rol de las nuevas tecnologías genéticas y productos para la sanidad vegetal, los cuales permiten a los agricultores producir más alimentos con menos insumos; b. La importancia de la biotecnología para garantizar una producción adecuada de alimentos, tanto en volumen como calidad, que supere los desafíos crecientes; c. La necesidad de seguir trabajando en mejorar la eficiencia logística del sector. 4. Se necesita aumentar el desarrollo social, económico, siendo importante para esto el desarrollo agrícola, como generador de empleo, desarrollo sostenible, sacando a las personas de la pobreza. a. De acuerdo con datos de Mato Groso, el índice de desarrollo humano (HDI) está directamente relacionado a la expansión de la producción agrícola. Se destaca también la importancia del agro como generador de empleos, que garantiza la permanencia de los habitantes en su territorio; b. También se destacó el rol del arroz en Uruguay y su aspecto social: genera 30000 puestos de trabajos directos e indirectos, provee mano de obra genuina, mejora la calidad de vida de ciudades y pueblos, estimula la ciencia y la tecnología. Es un sistema productivo de bajo impacto ambiental y uso racional de los recursos, donde existe un modelo de producción sostenible.237238239240241242243244246248249250El reporte enfocó los puntos de convergencia en los debates.

2021-05-08 15:32:46205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/8600/135

34114211774816917113412612210265492102126458

Probing issues relating to food system value chain revolving around the 5 Actions Tracks were thrown into panel discussion to sensitize and open the mind of the participants to the direction of what the dialogue entails. The panel discussion also highlighted different food systems perspectives and stimulated the thoughts of the different stake holders ahead of group discussions to be led by Facilitators with emphasis on the peculiarities across participating states and food systems.The dialogues was able to complement the work and preliminary efforts of others critical stakeholders. For example, prior to the regional exploratory dialogues that was held across the 6 geopolitical zones of Nigeria, FAO supported the process by commissioning a review of evidence and actions currently on-going in the country. The outcome of the review was provided to all appointed experienced and knowledgeable facilitators ahead of the dialogues so that they could come up with questions to guide the discussions and probe for more information and suggestions for improving our food systems to deliver high quality diet and affordable nutrition; and also inclusive, efficient, resilient, and sustainable; and work for everyoneThere is need to interface, coordinate and establish relationships with all key stakeholders in the food system space including scientists, researchers, economists, farmers, civil society, government agencies, private, and political and social, the coordination is very key because each of these groups have a vital role to play in transforming food systems.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The major focus of the exploratory dialogues at the geopolitical level was to create an opportunity in guiding governments and other stakeholders to identify for implementation of reforms that would transform food systems towards achieving the SDGs; identify game changing ideas that would transform the food systems of various sub-populations in the Country; help develop the future direction for Global Food Systems and inspire necessary action; and promote potentials and understanding the challenges that arise from food systems by collaboration and consensus among all stakeholders. The major challenges facing the Nigeria Food Systems were identified by stakeholders to include - gaps in food insecurity and malnutrition across Nigeria and populations, forests and deforestation is a serious challenge in the region; No land space in the South West and population is increasing; There are other several critical issues that challenge food system performance: rapid urbanisation and the growth of megacities, requirements for agro-food systems upgrading, and management of food access, distribution and price through rural-urban linkages. Efforts were made by the facilitators to get the stakeholders to suggest ways they think the challenges they have identified could be addressed.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251To ensure that the food production systems produce good quality and nutritionally adequate food commodities, stakeholders recommended the that there is need to change the face of agriculture in South West in favour of agribusiness and mechanized farming to avert the risk of famine and starvation. It is suggested that crop farming in the region should be revolutionize to incorporate efficient irrigation system as against the usual rain-fed agriculture in order to encourage an all year-round food production. An associated recommendation is that there is need to have adequate data on farming population, food production, comparative advantage of different crops and other produce and reposition agriculture as a career in the region. To conserve the environment, stakeholders was of opined that the region should conduct environmental audit of various interventions that have been done in times past, especially those on smart agricultural practices, national fadama and critical ecosystem management projects, national erosion and watershed management projects, and do a modelling of impact, scale-up where necessary, and strategize on the way forward for a sustainable food system by 2030. Stakeholders believe that a Modern technology such as IT and GIS should be deployed into soil and nutrient mapping, land banking and weather modelling as means to control poor farming system. There was a call by the stakeholders to encourage organic farming and the planting of biofortified crops through community sensitization as a means of protecting the environment. Stakeholders called for improvement of the infrastructure and create incentives in the rural areas such as the creation of farm estates to stem the rural – urban migration. It was also suggested to put in place policies action to reduce women vulnerability and protect their livelihoods to bridge gender gap for them to contribute more to the food systems Stakeholders concluded that post-harvest losses can be drastically reduced through provision of rural infrastructure, including access (feeder) roads, power and facilities for storage and processing, including cold chains, perishables and cereals. Improvements in these areas will have an immediate and dramatic positive effect on the volume of food reaching the market (consumers) in good condition. This will increase food availability and reduce food inflation. Improving storage facilities to increase food availability such as silos for grains to improve storage; Creation of Farm estates from farm settlements to creating an enabling environment for those involved in food production and also as a means of making Agriculture attractive to the youths and Regular education provided to the public to help them make healthy food choices. Stakeholders recommended the urgent implementation of the following actions to kick start the process of repairing the SW geopolitical zone food systems. i. Crop farming in the region should be revolutionize to incorporate efficient irrigation system as against the usual rain-fed agriculture in order to encourage an all year-round food production; ii. Extension services should be improved to include environmental extension which should incorporate environment friendly farming systems; iii. There should be capacity building for farmers on new farming techniques climate smart Agriculture, aqua-ponics, wildlife domestication, intensive vegetable gardening, & aquaculture in order to improve food supply; iv. There should be a well-established storage facilities located in strategic places across the States to prevent post-harvest losses; v. Development of good and efficient road and rail networks to ensure effective transportation of farm produce, so as to bridge the gap between farm gate and markets and reduce post-harvest losses; vi. Strengthening of the security system by the government so as to to secure our lands and forests and recover farmlands from bandits in order to build the confidence of farmers back to the farm; vii. Provision of well-structured credit facilities which are farmer friendly, accessible and sustainable will help to cope with stresses from poverty; viii. Development of a robust commodity market system that will absorb market glut and hence ensure price stability; ix. Collaborating with research institutes and various higher institutions of learning and investing more in demand-driver research activities by the government, as well utilizing research findings that can help in building resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stresses; x. Develop traditional foods like wild vegetables, wild fruits, condiments, spices, organics like mushrooms, to feature more in the national food system. xi. Establishing effective monitoring and evaluation strategy.236238243244245246247248249250251Discussion Topic Southwest Food System for Ensuring Access to Safe and Nutritious Food for All What actions in next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion Topic? Strand 1: Reducing hunger and inequality 1. Provision of rural infrastructure, including access roads, power and storage and processing facilities. 2. Implementation of policies to drive the attainment of access to safe and nutritious food for all. 3. Massive irrigation programme for year round farm production. 4. Encouragement of youth farming /agricultural business, as replacement for ageing farming population. 5. Facilitation of access to farm land through the establishment of Land Banks. 6. Facilitation of land clearing with farm mechanisation as a critical requirement for youth and older, as well as women farmers. 7. Encouragement of urban farming, particularly for women-led production and processing of food. 8. Robust Agricultural Extension Services to support the agriculture value chains. 9. Formation of Smallholder farmers’ cooperatives, for financing and agro-processing. Strand 2: Increasing availability and affordability of nutritious foods 1. Re-establishment of agricultural commodity boards for good, stable prices for agricultural commodities, and regional farm produce markets for access to cheaper fresh food. 2. Promotion of wholesome indigenous foods and livestock and apiculture. 3. Sustenance of National Home Grown School Feeding programme. 4. Promotion of biofortified foods, for provision of vitamin and mineral-enriched staples. Strand 3: Ensuring safe food 1. Adoption of Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) and safe food handling practices. 2. Establishment of public health laboratories, to support Nutrition Units in ensuring food safety compliance. 3. Collaboration between state food safety agencies and Federal regulatory agencies, to curb food adulteration. Cross-cutting 1. Mainstreaming of agriculture into elementary and secondary education. 2. Promotion of local production of agricultural implements and processing machines. 3. Enhancement of rural security network by formation of farm clusters and deployment of Joint Task Forces of State and Non-state security entities. What contributions will our organisations make? 1. Outcomes of researches by Federal, state and private universities and institutes, need to be streamed into the private sector, for greater efficiency and productivity in food production. 2. Some Southwest states’ initiatives like Start Them Early Programme (STEP) for sustainable food production and Youth in Commercial Agriculture Development (YCAD) should be adopted by other Southwest states. 3. There is a need to ensure the support of development partners and multilateral organizations, particularly for provision of technology and market development. How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? 1. Provision of robust Monitoring and Evaluation system in line with global best practices where key performance indicators could be monitored. 2. The Southwest States’ Committees on Food and Nutrition will, with timely and adequate funding, be effective in project assurance.236239243244245246247248249250251Shift To Healthy and Sustainable Consumption Patterns AT2 Oyo state What actions in next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion Topic? (i) A sustained, institutionalised, content and context-specific education at each segment if the food system (ii) un-interrupted supply of electricity for processing, preservation And storage of food products (iii) Active participation of relevant regulatory Agencies (IV) Full involvement of electronic and print media What contributions will our organisations make? (i)Construction of rural road networks to improve access to farm settlement, to enhance the transfer of food products to the markets. (ii)Improving storage facilities to increase food availability: Commissioning of 10,000 tons silos for grains to improve storage (iii)Creation of Farm estates from farm settlements to creating an enabling environment for those involved in food production and also as a means of making Agriculture attractive to the youths (iv)Regular education provided to the public to help them make healthy food choices How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? Baseline evaluation and periodic evaluations with intent for necessary interventions236240243244245246247248249250251BOOSTING NATURE- POSITIVE FOOD SYSTEM PRODUCTION What actions in next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion Topic? • Government actions of improving security in farming areas connected with food production, processes and distribution, access to funds, reduction of post-harvest losses will encourage farmers. • Government should make policies on intervention on mechanized farming for farmers and ease of doing business and value addition to farm Products. • Other major issues that will boost nature positive food system is that Agricultures should have attractive incentive attachment that will attract youths to go into farming, and change their orientation about get rich quick attitudes .. • This can be achieved through enlightenments campaign , improved sensitization for farmers, improve irrigation process in farming, optimization in technology, and Infrastructure back up What contributions will our organisations make? • All organization present agreed to synergise and collaborate through networking and timely arrange for workshop , seminar and training on home gardening and homestead Aquaculture practise. • Commodity exchange, community and aggregation farming (Pay more attention to organic farming) in order to boost Nature –Positive food production. How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? • The successful action will be observed through measurement and evaluation of aligning our indicator with the Sustainable Development Goals. • Evaluation methods of reduction of inflation of food prices, better nutrition and improved health status for children, reduction in malnutrition and stunted growth among under 5 years children. What are the divergences that are revealed and how to manage them? • The major divergences among the participants are on the different belief systems on methods of production and food processing, usage of agrochemicals and its implication on human health. • Arguments on better food production through the technology of genetically modified organisms(GMO).Diverse attitudes and habits of farmers not willing to learn improved farming methods for better yields. Suggested Management Options are as follows: • Government should expose different categories of farmers and food producers through training, workshops, and seminars at the grassroots level from local governments and wards by government on agriculture extension workers. • There should be enlightenment campaigns through radio, media houses, flyers and jingles.Regulators of investment processes should encourage businesses into sustainable practices, and give accessibility to soft loans, funds on a timely basis. • There should be a strong political will to break invisible glass walls, market structuring, whole sale market, cold chain infrastructure and market standardization and structuring.236241243244245246247248249250251Discussion Topic Advance Equitable Livelihoods What actions in next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion Topic? • Develop partnership with big private players in agriculture for capacity building and empowerment of small scale, poor, women and youth farmers. • Put in place food information system to provide relevant and accurate information on production practices, farm management, prices of agricultural produce, food security dimensions and markets for agricultural products • Enact policies to reduce women vulnerability and protect their livelihoods to bridge gender gap for them to contribute more to the food systems • Since the South West region is highly urbanized, the government of that region should encourage urban agriculture in order to enhance food security in the region • Enhance the earnings of the farmers by creating aggregation centers for uptake of farmers’ produce by companies who make use of the farm produce in their product development at good regulated prices such as it is being done by WAMCO which buys milk directly from small scale producers • Invest and encourage value addition food processing by women, youth, small scale entrepreneurs etc. to enhance equitable livelihoods in the food system • Put in place insurance scheme to enhance profitability and mitigate loss in the food system What contributions will our organisations make? • State governments must enact policies to pull down discriminatory barriers in accessing public finances and other requisite resources for equitable livelihood in the food system • The Academia should serve as think tank in formulating appropriate strategies and policies to achieve equitable livelihood for all • The development partners can help in the development of food information system and advocacy for urban agriculture in the region How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? • Existence of relevant agencies, partnership, policies and legislations to reflect the recommended actions • The number of small scale entrepreneurs, women and youth that have received capacity building and empowerment resulting from the partnership of government and big players in the food system • Existence of a functioning food information system for the region • Number of people that start practicing urban agriculture • Existence of aggregation centers for uptake of farmers produce by companies which make use of the farm produce in their product development • Number of value addition food processing units by women, youth, small scale entrepreneurs etc. • Existence of a comprehensive food system insurance scheme and the number of stakeholders that participate and benefit from such scheme236242243244245246247248249250251Discussion Topic Building resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress. What actions in next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion Topic? • Crop farming in the region should be revolutionized to incorporate efficient irrigation system in order to encourage an all year-round food production. • Environmental extension services should be incorporated into the overall extension service system in the zone to promote environment friendly farming systems. • There should be capacity building for farmers on new farming techniques climate smart Agriculture, aqua ponics, wildlife domestication, intensive vegetable gardening, aquaculture and homestead farming. • There should be a well-established storage facilities located in strategic places across the States to prevent post-harvest losses • Development of efficient road and rail networks to ensure effective transportation of farm produce. • Strengthening of the security architecture by the government so as to recover forest and farmlands from bandits and build confidence of farmers back to the farm • Development of agricultural industrial hubs such as farm settlement schemes in the states. • Provision of well-structured credit facilities which are farmer friendly, accessible and sustainable. • Development of a robust commodity market system that will absorb market glut and hence ensure price stability. • Collaborating with research institutes and various higher institutions of learning and investing more in demand-driver research activities by the government, as well as collating and utilizing research findings that can help in building resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stresses. • Our correctional institutions should incorporate inmates into the food production system right from land preparation to cultivation and food processing • Develop traditional foods like wild vegetables, wild fruits, condiments, spices, organics like mushrooms, to feature more in the national food system. What contributions will our organisations make? • The Academia and research institutes will assist in conducting demand-driven researches that will promote a more environment-friendly agriculture, increase yield as well as food and nutrition security and equitable livelihood for all, while ensuring the sustainability and functioning of the ecosystem. • The NGOs will be willing to collaborate with government to provide services in the area of monitoring and evaluation of interventions in the food system. • Enactment of enabling laws to back up the necessary policy initiatives will be made by the government in the zone How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? • Setting verifiable indicators of achievements and establish effective monitoring and evaluating strategies at the inception of each project. • Evaluate various interventions that have been done especially those on smart agricultural practices, National fadama and Critical ecosystem management projects, National erosion and watershed management projects in the time past and do a modelling of impact, scale-up where necessary and strategize on the way forward.237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251GROUP 1 There was no divergence in opinions in the group. The group concluded that the most critical factor in ensuring the success of the renewed effort on food security is the political will of government leaders. GROUP 2 Education: The need for different types of Education for different actors along the food system Lack of constant Electricity: Provision of alternative source of electricity that is cheap, clean and sustainable. GROUP 3 • Government actions of improving security in farming areas connected with food production, processes and distribution, access to funds, reduction of post-harvest losses will encourage farmers. • Government should make policies on intervention on mechanized farming for farmers and ease of doing business and value addition to farm Products. • Other major issues that will boost nature positive food system is that Agricultures should have attractive incentive attachment that will attract youths to go into farming, and change their orientation about get rich quick attitudes .. • This can be achieved through enlightenments campaign , improved sensitization for farmers, improve irrigation process in farming, optimization in technology, and Infrastructure back up What contributions will our organisations make? • All organization present agreed to synergise and collaborate through networking and timely arrange for workshop , seminar and training on home gardening and homestead Aquaculture practise. • Commodity exchange, community and aggregation farming (Pay more attention to organic farming) in order to boost Nature –Positive food production. How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? • The successful action will be observed through measurement and evaluation of aligning our indicator with the Sustainable Development Goals. • Evaluation methods of reduction of inflation of food prices, better nutrition and improved health status for children, reduction in malnutrition and stunted growth among under 5 years children. What are the divergences that are revealed and how to manage them? • The major divergences among the participants are on the different belief systems on methods of production and food processing, usage of agrochemicals and its implication on human health. • Arguments on better food production through the technology of genetically modified organisms(GMO).Diverse attitudes and habits of farmers not willing to learn improved farming methods for better yields. Suggested Management Options are as follows: • Government should expose different categories of farmers and food producers through training, workshops, and seminars at the grassroots level from local governments and wards by government on agriculture extension workers. • There should be enlightenment campaigns through radio, media houses, flyers and jingles.Regulators of investment processes should encourage businesses into sustainable practices, and give accessibility to soft loans, funds on a timely basis. • There should be a strong political will to break invisible glass walls, market structuring, whole sale market, cold chain infrastructure and market standardization and structuring. GROUP 4 The insecurity crisis in the farming communities in the South west region is creating so much fear and distrust among the farming communities and is affecting the food system very gravely. The state governments to come together as a unit to collaboratively monitor their borders, farmland and forests GROUP 5 • Farming in whatever form is generally seen as a profession of the poor which is poorly embraced by the society. This may jeopardise the good intentions of farm settlement initiatives. There should therefore be psychological reorientation that will engender the needed attitudinal change for youths to embrace agriculture in order to ensure a resilient national food system.

2021-05-08 16:19:54205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/7737/135

162266886917131114687237141687111719

A panel session was held to facilitate easy understanding of the issues to be discussed at the Dialogue and stimulate ideas from the participants at the Exploratory Dialogue. Thereafter, Facilitator-led breakout sessions to discuss and deliberate on the 5 Action Tracks of the UN Food Systems SummitPrior to the exploratory dialogues held across the 6 geopolitical zones of Nigeria, FAO supported the process by commissioning a review of evidence and actions currently on-going in the country. The document was to identified facilitators ahead of the dialogues so that they could come up with questions to guide the discussions, provide more information and suggestions for improving the food systems to ensure that they deliver high quality diet and affordable nutrition; are inclusive, efficient, resilient, and sustainable; and work for everyoneIt is important to pay more attention to the group composition in both virtual and physical. It is observed that many of the key sectors were not represented. It is important to invite more grass root individuals and small holder farmers from the regions to make sure that they are well represented during the event.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The major focus of the exploratory dialogues at the geopolitical level was to enable the States explore different perspectives about the zonal food systems; examine the possibilities for making the food systems inclusive, efficient, resilient, and sustainable; and turn possibilities with the greatest promise into priority actions that can be implemented towards building sustainable food systems and accelerate the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and consider ways in which different the groups of stakeholders can advance these options as contributions to the national pathway towards sustainable food systems. It was clear from discussions that there was very little understanding, even among policy makers that the excessive focus on agriculture and food security resulted in creating a less diverse food environment that is unable to provide an adequate variety and affordable, safe, and nutrient dense food. It was also very clear that more dialogues focussed on specific areas are still needed to harvest suggestions of game changers among various stakeholder groups. The general lack of understanding and low level of awareness among many rural inhabitants on nutritious and healthy diets coupled with high level of poverty came up prominently in the discussion. Most interventions in nutrition are health facility based with limited reach. This can only be addressed through community- based nutrition programmes and education complemented by nutrition education through the mass media. Other issues identified as militating against sustainable and resilient food systems are social norms leading to gender inequality and limited access to productive assets and weak integration of youth and women in agriculture. Poverty was also cited as limiting the access of majority of the population to diverse and nutritious diets. Efforts were made by the facilitators to get the stakeholders to suggest ways they think the challenges they have identified could be addressed.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251To ensure that the food production systems produce good quality and nutritionally adequate food commodities, stakeholders recommended the promotion and encouragement of the use of improved high yielding varieties of crops and livestock to increase productivity, and the provision of incentives to farmers in form of subsidy. An associated recommendation is the reduction of dependence on rain-fed agriculture and the promotion of irrigation methods that will shift focus to dry season production to ensure all year-round availability and affordability of nutritious foods, and the adoption of climate smart and nutrition responsive agricultural practices across the zone. To conserve the environment, stakeholders believe that a gradual shift from the use of inorganic fertilizers to the use of organic fertilizers and the proper use of herbicides and pesticides will protect the environment and support efforts towards ensuring the safety of agricultural produce and prevent food borne illnesses related to food safety issues. There was a call for the use of biological control agents in food production as a means to protecting the environment. There was a call to investigate and promote traditional practices that ensure the protection of the environment including the planting of cover crops to prevent soil erosion. Stakeholders also called for the enforcement of existing laws and regulations that prevent environmental degradation, and for the protection of the ecosystem against new conversions for food and feed production. The efficient recycling of waste, and the use of solar smoking kiln for fish and as against the traditional smoking method that uses wood smoke was also suggested as a means to protecting the health of the environment and of the people. Stakeholders called for the promotion of urban agriculture particularly for the production of vegetables and fruits for household consumption and the sale of the excess production for income generation. The enhancement of access to land for female farmers was also suggested as a way to ensuring household food access. Stakeholders opined that the provision of basic rural infrastructure will facilitate access of farmers to the market so as to reduce wastage, and curb the rising rate of rural urban migration, which in itself is a major underlying cause for household food insecurity and the rising levels of malnutrition in the country. Stakeholders concluded that post-harvest losses can be drastically reduced through the encouragement of on-farm processing activities and the provision of gender appropriate processing equipment, and the associated linkages to off-takers. The creation and revival of commodity boards was proposed as a means of addressing the issue of waste and linkages to off takers. The rehabilitation of, and the use of silos in each of the Local Government areas was also put forward as a means to reducing food post-harvest loses. To ensure the consumption of nutritious, safe, and diverse foods, stakeholders suggested a massive public enlightenment programme because they believe that a large proportion of the population do not have the information to be able to make informed decisions about what they should or should not eat. They also believe that there should be awareness creation on the benefits of consuming healthy, nutritious, and diverse foods. The following actions were recommended 1) Promotion of private sector agricultural extension systems to complement the public sector system for providing extension service to farmers along with awareness creation on the consumption of healthy diets. 2) Promotion of efficient storage techniques for various commodities and facilitating access to such. 3) Provision of basic rural infrastructure by government or through PPP. 4) Positioning & strengthening of research institutes to engage in demand driven research, clarifying their mandates, and monitoring their performances. 5) Setting out regulations and sanctions for environmental degradation from Agro-processing waste. 6) Government to work in partnership with private extension service providers, CSOs/NGOs to build capacity and strengthen extension service delivery. 7) Ensure that farmers have access to early maturing & disease resistant varieties of crops and livestock. 8) Massive enlightenment and sensitization of the general public on the benefits of afforestation and the challenges associated with deforestation. 9) Conflict management and reforms aimed at moderating clashes between farmers and herders. 10) Creating and maintaining a database of farmers to ensure that productive inputs reach practising farmers. 11) Strengthening the agricultural insurance scheme and breaking the monopoly of NAIC in this area. 12) Put in place a monitoring framework.236238243244245246247248249250251Discussion Topic South West food system eliminates hunger, reduces malnutrition, improves health, and provides food free from all forms of contamination for everyone, including the poor What actions in next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion Topic? Strand 1: Reducing hunger and inequality • Food must first be available before there can be nutritious or safe food. To increase food availability, farmers must be reached with financing, improved seeds that are high yielding, mechanization to reduce drudgery, irrigation to multiply number of planting cycles in a year, and chiefly, security of lives and property. • To improved access, market linkages must be improved, including roads rehabilitation, to facilitate distribution from areas of surplus to areas of scarcity. • For the very poor, nutrition-sensitive social protection programmes, including nutritious school meals, are indispensable. Strand 2: Increasing availability and affordability of nutritious foods • Promote value addition during food processing. • In rapidly urbanizing areas, affordable markets that sell fresh food products must be preserved. Strand 3: Ensuring safe food • Regulation of informal street food vendors is important. Local governments must strengthen environmental health regulatory system to incorporate supportive supervision practices and education before regulation. • Inappropriate use of agrochemicals along entire value chains must be addressed, including the regulation of agrochemicals. • Education of all food system actors to deliver and/or demand foods that meet minimum safety standards. • Production and promotion of improved packaging materials Cross-Cutting • Improved food storage and processing to ensure food availability year-round, prevent waste, preserve nutrient content, and ensure food safety. • Harness use of technology for information dissemination and education of actors along entire food supply chain • Homestead food production in both urban and rural areas. • Focus on women and active engagement of the youth. • Education of children, including incorporation of school gardens and food production and processing into school curriculum. What contributions will our organisations make for food systems transformation? • Local governments must be actively and strategically engaged. • Ministries of agriculture, environment, and health should facilitate and coordinate actions. • Associations of farmers, food vendors, and food and beverage manufacturers should be used to reach grassroots. • Research institutes would identify necessary improved solutions • Regulatory agencies should facilitate food safety transformation. How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? • Better performance of children in schools in disadvantaged areas in external examinations • Reduced incidence of illnesses, evidenced by lower volumes of patients visiting medical facilities • Strengthened data collection, analysis, and dissemination.236239243244245246247248249250251Shift to healthy and sustainable consumption pattern Poor nutritional knowledge and ignorance on nutritious and healthy diets coupled with poverty are the causes of malnutrition among rural and urban dwellers. Shifting to healthy and sustainable consumption patterns requires motivating and empowering consumers to make informed, healthy, safe and sustainable food choices. To achieve this there is need for value reorientation of consumers through community engagements, mass media discussion programmes for parents and school children to rely on nutritious local foods like wholegrains, legumes, eggs and vegetables. Embarking on large scale production of blended foods from local sources to prevent and manage moderate acute malnutrition (MAM) and community driven food assistance programmes where communities procure food in bulk and distribute at cheaper rate to members should be explored. Training of food processors on the use of appropriate storage and preservation techniques especially for perishable foods is crucial in addition to consumer education on what constitutes healthy diets as well as reducing the consumption of high calorie, sugar and salt processed foods for healthy living cannot be overemphasised. Enhancing availability and access to healthy, safe and sustainable diets is also critical. This will involve rebranding the social investment policies to improve the nutrition status of the vulnerable groups, policy reorientation and reintegration of indigenous foods into fast food menu lists, legislation and enforcing regulations guiding fortification of processed foods for improved nutrition. Government assisted branded transportation system to move farm produce from farm gates to rural and urban markets to reduce costs, spoilage, improve availability and access to consumers should be encouraged. School feeding programme has the potential for laying a good foundation for healthy diets and sustainable food consumption among school children and when linked with small holder farmers can also ensure sustainable supply of fresh and safe foods for children. Governmental, non-governmental organisations, small and medium scale enterprises (SMEs) are important stakeholders in shifting to healthy and sustainable consumption patterns. They can contribute by producing dietary guidelines and food recipes for different age groups using National food based dietary guidelines, training farmers, agro processors, retailers in good agricultural practices as it concerns the use of pesticides and chemicals to ensure food safety. Reintroducing the commodity boards for produce uptake and price regulations of farm produce is essential. Low cost interventions that can improve child nutrition should be implemented while civil society organisations and other non-state actors should educate consumers on safe and nutritious foods and dispel food misinformation being peddled on social media. Farmers association should also embark on training of members on good agricultural practices for healthy and sustainable food production and consumption. Primary Health Care facilities should integrate food demonstration to caregivers on sustainable food diversification/consumption. To ensure the success of these actions, baseline data should be established at the beginning of interventions to know if they are successful or not while developing measurable and time bound indicators to collect data, track and measure the effects of interventions through periodic monitoring of the interventions.236240243244245246247248249250251Discussion Topic BOOSTING NATURE –POSITIVE FOOD SYSTEM PRODUCTION What actions in next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion Topic? • The Various government at all level of governance should strengthen the institutions and parastatals that controls food manufacturing ,food processing to assist in logistics and infrastructures such as roads, in order to reduce post-harvest losses and wastages of farmed products. • Efforts should be geared towards advocacy of qualitative and quantitative production under strict hygienic condition, effective handling, processes and safe distribution. • Another important factor of greatest impact is the availability and continuous provision of food for children, improving standard of living, realistic infrastructure planning, budgeting and efficiency through partnership support. • Farmer earnings must be considered and regulated to encourage all season farming with emphasis on subsidy in agricultural input for seasonal food storage. • Other areas incudes the involvement of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) to provide newer, better and quicker ways for people involved in food production to interact, network, help gain access in boosting nature positive food system production. What contributions will our organisations make? • The Multidisciplinary Stakeholders agreed to jointly have regular meeting ,focus on Synergy and Collaboration, Networking together to deliberate on constraints and opportunities to resolving issues around food production system and regulations. • Other areas of commitments is to take Statistical data collection and analysis of food production system by Multisector stakeholder by domesticating exploration for a speedy action in organizing food system summit at the grass root level. How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? • The Successful action can be detected through the following : i.e., Proper efficient accurate monitoring and evaluation(M&E),Participatory stakeholder Key Performance Indicator(KPI), to be measured continuously as well as widely publicised results to know the level of progress on the actions, level of compliance and what is lacking.236241243244245246247248249250251Discussion Topic 1. Vision for food systems in the next 10 years 2. On changes that must be made so that food systemscan meet SDG expectations by 2030 3.On how stakeholders can work well together and differently for collective action What actions in next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion Topic? 1. Synopsis of AT 4: Advancing equitable livelihoods and this encompasses, the youth; the very future of the food systems, women; statistically more involved in the actual food systems and the vulnerable groups; IDPs and refugees.  Encouraging family centred enterprises may be the fastest way to real changes as women run these families.  Policy makers should tweak policies to favour the youth, women and vulnerable groups. E.g. extending credits, loans and land ownership.  Urban farming to highlight the multiple roles of plants. E.g. Most local vegetables used as food also have highly potent medicinal properties.  Leverage on the Covid-19 pandemic crisis to advance subsistent farming of high value plants.  To advertise Agriculture in an attractive way speaking the language of the youth 2.  Capacity building, exclusively for women, youths and vulnerable peoples because they usually have limited skills and knowledge.  To tackle poverty from multi-dimensional aspects and focus on the the specific groups whose livelihoods and equity are threatened.  Tackling clear and present problems eg. Middlemen superiority and short-changing 3. Agricultural private sector ; corporations, small- and medium- sized enterprises, small businesses, women self-help groups etc. Can be a big help here as Track 4 involves structural changes and resetting of cultural mindsets that take time to achieve  Collective action of stakeholders is mostly in the area of capacity building. Motivations need to be put in place for practitioners e.g. tax exemptions. What contributions will our organizations make? Our organizations, made up of mostly agricultural private sector (corporations, small- and medium- sized enterprises, small businesses, women self-help groups, Youth groups, Leaders at IDP camps etc.), Intensive game-changing advocacy directed at the youth, women and vulnerable peoples. To adopt novel ways of creating awareness. To use Techy terms in the same breath as food systems, agriculture. To make agribusiness attractive to young people. How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? Effective monitoring and evaluation; Generating data and records which are currently unavailable in order to study the trends of the changes. Statistically taking data of youth and women involvements in a serious way profitable to the authentic data generator.236242243244245246247248249250251Discussion Topic Building resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress. What actions in next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion Topic? • To have in place structures such as cottage processing facilities, cold chain logistics, and proper storage system to reduce post-harvest losses. • An improved agricultural practices that ensure all year-round production by having a robust dry season farming/irrigation, taking advantage of numerous inland waterways, streams and lakes in the states. • Capacity building for farmers to embrace new technologies such as insitu production of organo-mineral fertilisers, farmer friendly soil testing techniques, principle of zero tillage farming and other simple methods of environment friendly farming practices like exsitu conservation of fauna species. • Good road network to ensure effective transportation of farm produce, so as to bridge gap between farm gate and markets • Decentalise National grain reserve services, establish functional commodities markets and establish functional agricultural insurance schemes to cater for shocks from failures due to disasters and other emergencies such as COVID-19 pandemic. • Frantic efforts by the government to strengthen security network in order to recover farmlands from bandits and build the confidence of farmers back to the farm • A more robust extension service system that will incorporate contemporary environment friendly protocols to protect soil and biological diversity. • Policy reforms and enabling acts to ensure preservation of forest reserves, greenbelts, wetlands, watersheds and other critical ecosystems to improve during adverse weather conditions. • Develop traditional foods like wild vegetables, wild fruits, condiments, spices, organics like mushrooms, to feature more in the national food system. • Development of home-based agriculture like aquaponics, and other home-based gardening, animal domestication like grass-cutter farming, snailery etc. • Well structure credit facilities which are farmer friendly accessible and sustainable will help to cope with stresses from poverty. • More investment in demand-driven research activities in various higher institutions of learning and research institutes, as well as collating research findings that can help in building resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stresses. What contributions will our organisations make? • The Academia will assist in conducting demand driven research that will bring about environment friendly agriculture, while ensuring sustainable functioning of the ecosystem. • Farmers association will be willing to collaborate with government and development partners to ensure compliance with regulations on how to ensure a resilient food system for the benefit of all. How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? • Establishing effective monitoring and evaluation strategies that will be multisectorial, multidisciplinary and with wide stakeholder participation. • Evaluate various interventions that have been done especially those on smart agricultural practices, National fadama and Critical ecosystem management projects, National erosion and watershed management projects in the time past.237238240241242243244245246247248249250251GROUP 1 • Actors benefitting from irregularities and inefficiencies in current systems are likely to be divergent. Food system transformation must incorporate inclusiveness and negotiation. • Conflicts among farmers and extension agents due to seeming incompatibilities between indigenous and new knowledge. Advances need to be introduced with sensitivity and innovative approaches. GROUP 3 • Some of the issues of divergence discussed are : • Many states are running different programs that are not having positive impact on boosting nature food production systems, for example the Development Agenda for Western Nigeria Platform (DAWN) that was in operation before election has been abandoned. • Constant agitations and disagreement on land tenure, acquisition and politics, different opinions of technocrats inclusion on governance and the policy makers on food production system, • Inability to collaborate on boosting nature food production by different divergent opinions by relevant stakeholders . • Suggested management option advises all Southern government to go back to the drawing board and reappraise, overhaul their capacity building that will have a positive impact on boosting all season food production system that will not be affected by climate change . Stakeholders with land shortage will need to be trained on diverse methods of urban farming; aeroponics, hydroponics etc and these are available already at least in Lagos. GROUP 4 Stakeholders with abundance of land resources,need encouragement through tax exemptions, subsidies on products, easy access to loans. GROUP 5 There were divergences in the definition and classification of migrants leaving as destitute, miscreants and other categories of migrants not leaving in IDP camps but require adequate attention for shock resistance for attainment of a sustainable food system in 2030.

2021-05-08 17:24:51205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/8622/135

27722651

The Sokoto dialogue centre was made up of participants from Sokoto, Kebbi and Zamfara States. The exploratory dialogue harnessed promising approaches to solving challenges from diverse stakeholders that are critical to food systems in the zone. In preparation for the dialogue there was engagement among the various groups and stakeholders for a common position to be presented during the dialogue. The dialogue had an opening ceremony with goodwill messages from various stakeholders from the participating states with the dialogue declared opening by the host Governor. There was a technical session during which the dialogue took place with focus on the five action tracks with summary of outcome presented in plenary.The Exploratory Dialogue was guided by the United Nations Five Action Tracks and also explored key cross-cutting issues like finance, technology and empowerment of women and young people which can be mobilized to ensure that food system in the North west is inclusive, efficient, resilient, and sustainable in order to deliver quality diet and livelihood.There is need to plan for more dialogues at the rural communities to get to the population that their voices are seldom heard of which many of them their livelihood depends largely on the food system. Such dialogue will give them the opportunity to contribute to finding solution to their challenges.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The major focus of the exploratory dialogue in the Sokoto Dialogue Centre was a comprehensive exploration of the Food Systems in the North West Zone with focus on the participating states (Kebbi, Sokoto and Zamfara). Participants identified the issues/challenges affecting the food systems along the five action tracks and levers of the UN Food Systems Summit. They conducted discussion on the food systems, major stakeholders, potentials, vulnerabilities, as well as opportunities for its transformation so that it can deliver high quality diet and affordable nutrition that is inclusive, efficient, resilient, and sustainable and as means of livelihood. The discussions revealed that the negative impact of the 2020 flood witnessed in the zone which ravaged the farm lands thereby throwing many families into poverty with implementable strategies that would assist in mitigation against such future occurrences. There are misuse of Agrochemicals and selling of grains to farmers in the place of seeds which affect their production output. There is inadequate knowledge on post-harvest management, lack of clear data on actual requirements of farmers, Government support towards improving agriculture using mechanized agriculture, advanced storage facilities are inadequate and lack of collaborations between federal and state towards improving the food system. Furthermore, there are many challenges across the food systems in the participating states. There is equity issues affecting access to land, loans and agricultural inputs propagated by the existing gender norms, vulnerability, poverty and illiteracy of the peasant farmers. Specifically, there is neglect or improper representation of women in the areas of food production, discrimination against women in sharing of agricultural inputs and credit facilities despite the significant role they play in the transformation of the food system, marketing monopoly by middlemen, poor government implementation of social protection programs, agricultural insurance and farmers loans, poor support for small and medium size enterprises which are major part of a strong agricultural value chain. Insecurity due to banditry and farmer-herdsmen clashes have made it difficult for farmers to access their farms. Effect of environmental changes such as drought, flood and desertification is hitting hard on the farmers with a lots of loss of crops which lead to poor yield.2352382392402412422432442452462472482492502511. The dialogue was able to identify the mentioned food systems challenges from multiple perspectives which include inadequate support from government and agricultural inputs, gender discrimination in terms credit facilities and farm input distribution and land acquisition. 2. The participants identified promising strategies for improving nutrition security, reducing hunger and prevalence of malnutrition in line with the National Policy on Food and Nutrition for Nigeria. 3. We have a unique opportunity to build our new national food systems narrative into our key national development plans for 2025, 2030 and 2050.This will require radical thinking, smart partnerships, but strong political will and courage to advance the food systems transformation we need in Nigeria. 4. There is need to promote more inclusive, healthier food systems, encourage collaborative approach towards building sustainable food security and enhancing the achievement of the SDGs.  While these transformations will be a journey, we must start by taking some strategic and immediate transition steps – the suggested steps include o Generate regular appropriate production data through ADP or other agencies and identification of comparative advantage crops in each state for support by government in the area of farm inputs and value addition o Organizing training for farmers on good agricultural practices and use of improved seed varieties to optimize yield o Encouragement of small scale food processor and aggregating farms for reliable off takers thereby expanding farmers market o Support for Mass media education of the public on safe and healthy nutritious diet o Government to ensure sufficient fund and adequate support given to agriculture with appropriate timeliness. o There is need for strong partnership between government, private sector and other funding agencies both local and international for improvement in the food system. o Emphasis were made on the need for urgent and immediate collaboration between the national and state agencies and also engaging all stakeholders, so as to know the actual statistics of the problems, demands and requirements gaps that need to be bridge through Agricultural extension workers. o Federal Government to address the issue of insecurities, fertilizer distributions and also take measures to ensure government interventions reach the intended beneficiaries. o Active sensitization and mass media communications to the grass root on the importance of fruit and vegetable consumption. o Made available access roads for easy conveyance of the farm produce to avoid losses before getting to the market. o Adoption of modern techniques of farming by empowering farmers with local technologies and farm implements that can be maintain by the local farmers. o Derive a means of reliable and sustainable storage patterns throughout the year. o Enlighten women on the process of cooking a healthy food. o Empower youth to embrace farming as an occupation/business o Make lands available and accessible for farming to take place. o Government to enforce price control across all levels o Women groups should be created and encouraged to participate and be involved in every decisions with regards to Food System. o Enforcement of Deforestation Act by the government in other to reduce the negative effect associated with it. o Adoption or implementation of Climate Smart Agriculture System with effective and proactive land preparation like soil testing etc. o Government direct investment in Agriculture Extension Education to empower and assist farmers in food production and value addition in order to reduce post-harvest losses o Equitable social protection programs and insurance that works for farmers. o Government policies should be effectively implemented by agencies e.g., CBN anchor borrower scheme. o Involvement of women and physically challenge in agricultural program planning and implementation. o Actions on the role of Women in the transformation of the Food system in the North western Nigeria include Women empowerment, Encourage the women cooperative association, Allocating a percentage to the women group when sharing items at all level including credit facilities o Actions on the issue of insecurity: use of current technologies and methods such as the use of drones for the application of fertilizer, herbicides and pesticides; the use of mechanized farming tools; Geological surveys and mapping of areas of agricultural activities and insecurity prone areas; Group security system/Community security system (Vigilante) o Actions on Environmental factors: use improved seed varieties and Pest control measures, Mapping of drought and flood prone areas for necessary mitigation measures; Practice of sustainable agriculture to preserve236238243244245246247248249250251Recommendations from the discussants are as follows: Strand 1: Reducing hunger and inequality o Identify the vulnerable o Addressing poverty by increasing purchasing power of the poor o Bio-fortification o Address post-harvest loses o Government regulation on food price/incentives o Encouraging Corporate Social Responsibility Strand 2: Increasing availability and affordability of nutritious foods o Revive and improve on irrigation system o Engaging in good agricultural practices GAP to increase food production o Harm farmers with skill and knowledge o Home gardening and backyard farming o Raising official off-takers for crops to have competitive advantage o Good road network for easy movement of the farm produce o Adequate security in the country to protect farmers and their farms. o Educating farmers on the use of agrochemicals o Promotion of aquaculture among women and youth o Training of the farmers on modern ways on food storage o Embracing Mechanization in all our agricultural system o Use of ICT to monitor the processes of our production Strand 3: Ensuring safe food o Engaging research agricultural institutes to do the needful o Pass the Food Safety Bill and legislate food safety o Provision of portable water for all the vulnerable o Food Sanitation o Regulation of street food vendors and restaurants o Greater regulation of ingredients in industrially produced foods o Encourage mobile food bank o Less use of inorganic fertilizer o Training on food handling, cooking and consumption Actions to be taken the next 3 years: o Appropriate production data through ADP or other agencies o Identification of comparative advantage of crops in each state o M & E Department must be involved o Identify the area of value addition o Improvement in seed varieties to optimize yield o Organizing training for farmer on good agricultural practices o Draw out a work plan and achievable time lines o Resources must be committed to the project o Emergency food security assessment o Farmers need to be trained o Aggregating farms for reliable off-takers o Mass media education on nutritious dieting on weekly basis o Training and support for health worker and care givers. Action plan for next 10 years (2030) o It is progressive from what result we get from 3 years work plan o Government should release budget allocated to agriculture sufficiently and on time. Cross cutting o Home gardens/backyard farming gives you access to nutritious foods. o Revitalization of our agricultural institute of research and regular funding to upscale production. o Government should develop nutrition based dietary guidelines for all at all level o Financing and Increasing modern biotechnology research, o Public education on responsible use of agro-chemicals. o Establish credible and integrated data base for detailed food systems information. o Establishment of Food Systems Bill236239243244245246247248249250251Discussion Topic SHIFT TO HEALTHY AND SUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION PATTERNS After explaining the track in line with the summit’ goals. Definition of some basic terms like the food security, food system, chains involved in the food chain, problems already identified by the FAO reports all in relations to the Track (Track- 2). Then the floor was declared open for brainstorming, which gave out the following recommendations: Responses Regarding the actions greatest impact in the next 3 years • Emphasis were made on the need for urgent and immediate collaboration between the national and state agencies to engage all stakeholders, so as to know the actual statistics of the problems, demands, requirements gaps that need to be bridge through Agricultural extension workers. • Immediately shift away from the use of chemical fertilizers and adopt the use of organic fertilizer. Because residues from chemical fertilizers causes a lot of health hazards. • Emphasizing on the exclusive system of feeding so as to safeguard the health of infants between 0 to 6months • FG to address the issue of insecurities, fertilizer distributions and also taking furnishable measures on those misappropriating the government interventions. • Active sensitization and mass media communications to the grass root farmers on the importance of garnishing the food by some vital vegetables like moringa. • Provision of access roads for easy conveyance of the farm produce, as some are spoilt before transporting them to the market. • Adoption of modern techniques by empowering the local technologies to form farm implements that can be maintain by the local farmers. • Derive a means of reliable and sustainable storage patterns throughout the year. • Enlighten women on the process of cooking a healthy food. • Empower youth to embrace farming as an occupation/business for all not for the villagers and old ages. • Make lands available and accessible for the farming to take place. • Appropriate Implementation of all the vital information. • Government to enforce price control across all levels. Contributions to be made by organizations • Civil Society Organizations wish to embark on massive sensitization (different age groups) on the health importance of the fruits and vegetables • Government promised to improve quality production by introduction of a clustered system of farming • Empowering the farmers and ensuring improve local production. • Government to assists and empower widows and orphans, to be self-reliant. • Farmers Associations bow to give a series of orientations to their members on how to access, utilizes and manage government interventions • The actions can only be possible by implementation of the whole observations/ issues that were raised during the summits. • Ensuring good governance and sincerity in implementations of action plans • Ensuring all year-round irrigation system of farming as that of raining season may not be enough. • The believed that government are doing enough but the farmers are abusing the efforts and majority of the farmers associations disputed the assertions.236240243244245246247248249250251Boost Nature Positive Production at Sufficient Scale The goal is to provide healthy and nutritious food to all people, while creating livelihood opportunities and reducing the negative environmental, climate and health impacts associated with food systems. The following were observed and recommended: Challenges Associated with Nature-Positive Production • Time lag of benefits • Weak knowledge and advisory systems • Higher labor demand • Higher transaction costs • Policy incoherence • Poor marketing and processing facilities What actions in next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion Topic? 1. Increasing the knowledge and innovation for Nature-Positive Production which can be achieved through research funding. 2. Women groups should be created and encouraged to participate and be involved in every decisions with regards to Food System. Likewise, their access to land, water and biodiversity should be improved. 3. Promote marketing and processing facilities for nature-positive products. 4. Develop Policy on nature-positive production and its coherence with other available policies should be ensured. 5. Enforcement of Deforestation Act by the government in other to reduce the negative effect associated with the act. 6. Adapt and strengthen the knowledge development of farmers, farm advisors, food technologist and academics. 7. Adoption or implementation of Climate Smart Agriculture System. 8. Promoting the Urban Food Production System 9. Tackling the issues of insurgency affecting the region. How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? 1. Through proper and effective monitoring and evaluation of: - Implementation of Policy on Nature-Positive Production if developed by the relevant MDAs - Women participation by both the Federal and States Ministry of Women Affairs - Enforcement of Deforestation Act by the Federal and States Ministry of Environment - Climate Smart Agriculture System by Federal and States Ministry of Agriculture 2. Through Food Production Inventory Data Base Conclusions Policy intervention and prudent governance are needed to transform food production from nature-negative to nature-positive production systems. Nature-positive production systems must be integrated into school and college curricula and vocational educational programs.236241243244245246247248249250251Advancing equitable livelihoods in Nigeria. The Summary of discussions are presented as follows: 1. What actions in the next 3 years will have the greatest impact on the discussion topic? • Effective and proactive land Preparation – Co-ordination, soil testing, etc. • Govt. direction and investment in Agric. Extension Education and general education of the population • Agric. Value chain development by individual with government input • Strong community board for market control and promoting of finance and agric. inputs. • Equitable social protection programs and insurance that works for farmers. • Government policies should be effectively implemented by agencies e.g., CBN anchor borrower scheme. • Carry women and disabled people along in agricultural program planning and implementation. • Improvement of security situation in the country to allow farmers to move to their farms with ease and businesses to operate freely. 2. What contribution will our organizations make? • Religious and community leaders have a role in stabilizing communities and managing gender norms. • Government should support development of strong market associations. • State commodity boards should be more effective in monitoring and implementing price control for agricultural commodities as well as regulating the activities of middlemen. 3. How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? • Peaceful, prosperous, and productive farmers who are using technology in their farms to improve output. • Effective and functional agricultural extension services which are supporting farmers’ activities. • Religion and culture are fundamental gender issues but are enablers for empowering women and disabled people at the grassroots. • Use of technology and mechanization is widespread with the adoption of simple tools and more complex machinery. • Reduction of poverty. Vision of Success/Solutions • An organized value chain is in place in every agricultural community. • The well-educated workforce who has basic education who are involved in the agricultural value chain. • Sufficient numbers of well-trained agricultural extension workers are available to help all farmers of different gender, ability, and locations. • A well-established, well-funded and equipped agricultural extension service. • Reduction in poverty in the rural areas among the peasant farmers • Widespread adoption of technology with evidence of improvement of activities and output by local farmers • More environmentally friendly agricultural activities in local communities. • Organized, effective, and functional agricultural cooperatives, farmers associations and commodity boards that provide strict price regulation and guarantee value for the rural farmers and others in the local agricultural value chain. • Other types of farming activities beyond arable farming are established and people across all strata, gender and capability are participating in the food system. • Well-Functioning insurance schemes available to farmers to mitigate unforeseen shocks.236242243244245246247248249250251Discussion Topic Building Resilience to Food system in North western Nigeria to withstand Vulnerability, Shock and Stresses What actions in next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion Topic? The actions that can have the greatest impact in the next three years: 1. Role of Women in the transformation of the Food system in the North western Nigeria: i. Women empowerment ii. Encourage the women to form corporative and association iii. Allocating a certain quarter to the women group 2. Actions on the issue of insecurity: i. Technological equipments and methods such as drones for the application of fertilizer, herbicides and pesticides; the use of mechanized farming tools ii. Improved seed varieties iii. Geological surveys and mapping of areas of agricultural activities iv. Group security system/Community security system (Vigilante) 3. Actions on Environmental factors: i. Improved seed varieties ii. Pest control measures iii. Mapping of drought and flood prone areas iv. Practice of sustainable agriculture v. Measures to make sure the agricultural inputs reach the grassroot farmers 4. On shocks such as the outbreak of COVID-19 in 2020: i. Provision of storage facilities ii. Provision of food processing facilities iii. Provisions of credit facilities and other palliative measure What actions in next 10 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion Topic? 1. The use of high tech modern farming equipments 2. Construction of Earth dams and water reservoirs across the communities 3. Sustainable agricultural measures such as afforestation. What contributions will our organizations make? 1. Ministry of Animal Health and Fishery development: i. Artificial insemination ii. Cross breading iii. Provision of quality breeds of animals including fish fingerlings iv. Provision of extension service v. M &E 2. Ministry of Water resources: i. Geological survey ii. Laboratory assessment of Water 3. Ministry of Agriculture and rural development: i. Pest control measures ii. Provision of extension services iii. M & E 4. Nigeria Cassava Growers Association i. Improve seedlings ii. M &E 5. National Sheeps and Goat Development Association i. Tracking of activities ii. Monitoring and evaluation of how credits facilities are utilized How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? Monitoring and evaluation of projects and activities by various stakeholders including government MDAs and Non-Governmental Organizations. The divergent was on the approaches to avert the effect of insecurity: i. Issue of Group security ii. Government been responsible for securing the population iii. Individuals should be empowered to provide securities for themselves Way forward on the above issues: 1. The government should do more on handling the issues of insecurity and should work with the community leaders in this respect putting into considerations the peculiarities of each community. Recommendations i. Women empowerment at all level of government ii. Government should work with various stakeholders iii. Government should utilize the services of stakeholders that can provide various extension services. iv. The farmers and other stakeholders should form groups/cooperatives/associations.237238240241242243244245246247248249250251GROUP 1 o Delay in release of funds for farmers to address by Government. o Researchers should liaise with farm to update them in useful methodology o Government need to be buying directly from the farmers not off-takers GROUP 3 The divergence revealed was the possibility for continue of the Irrigation System of farming considering its negative effect with regard to our natural environment. However, the issue was managed by ensuring its negative impact has being reduced through the creation or provision of Digital Elevation Model, Small Earth Dam and Water Harvesting System. GROUP 4 • Political inference in allocation and distribution of land, loans, and input should be addressed. • Government should address the issue of land grabbing de wealthy individuals. • Female and disabled farmers need to be supported, carried along and given opportunities. • Use of technology on the farm should be promoted. GROUP 5 The divergent was on the approaches to avert the effect of insecurity: i. Issue of Group security ii. Government been responsible for securing the population iii. Individuals should be empowered to provide securities for themselves

2021-05-08 17:55:30205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/8641/135

46192738892255103102142

Participating states were written to formally by the convenor and the states leadership were engaged at opportune meetings where the issues and expectations of the regional food system dialogues were addressed including the expectations, participation that stressed leaving no one behind including the generation of participants at the physical and virtual meeting to ensure full participation of all involved in the food system in the states and the region. The urgency of actions to make the food systems work for everyone and the environment in the region was stressed during the preparations for the dialogue,and in all speeches, good will messages, and discussions. The dialogue agenda setting stressed the principles and expectations at the meeting proper. ALL the 5 action tracks were given equal opportunities of being discussed and analysed as they relate to the region.Recognize complexity: The agenda setting reflected the complexity and inter relatedness of the 5 action tracks as well as set a common understanding of what constitute the food systems. The published issues, status and challenges of the North East’s food system was included in the agenda setting to stimulate the discussions. The setting concluded with a call to ALL participants to proffer a holistic course of action that will ensure that the food system delivers high quality diet that are affordable, healthy, nutritious and able to meet the need of all, inclusive, efficient, resilient, and sustainable.Need to plan for dialogues based on the challenges of the new normal with regards to the COVID-19 pandemic – consideration of the mode of participation (virtual or physical or both). Infrastructural limitations with internet access and quality will be a limiting factor to participation of people in areas with limited infrastructure. The build up to the explorative dialogue in resource poor zones with limited infrastructure can be daunting.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The North East regional dialogue was a comprehensive exploration of the regions’ Food Systems along the five action tracks and levers of the UN Food Systems Summit. Participants conducted a thorough diagnosis of the food systems, including its functionality, major stakeholders, potentials, vulnerabilities, as well as opportunities for its transformation so that it can deliver high quality diet that is affordable, healthy, nutritious, inclusive, efficient, resilient, and sustainable; as well as able to meet the need of all actors of the food system. The dialogue observedthat the focus on agriculture value chain and food security resulted in anunintended consequenceof creating a less diverse food environment that is unable to provide needful food variety that are affordable, safe, and nutritious enough to meet the needs of all in the region. The region’s Food systems are noted to be under stress and shocks continually being disrupted as a result of the conflicts and insecurity. In addition, part of the region is threatened by climate change and stresses due to the impact of drought, flooding, erosion, inflation, the COVID-19pandemic, and conflict. Poverty, unemployment, and insufficient food reserves limit the capacity of the food systems to cope with shocks and stresses. The COVID pandemic has amplified the fragility, inequities and suboptimal functionality of the region’s food systems thus requiring significant transformations in polices, practices and business models that would make the food systems fit for purpose and enable the delivery of the most important functions rooted in robust evidence base, context and emerging regional, country global trends and realities. Most times, the vulnerable group in the region are the most affected by the challenge of food safety and the most nutritious foods are noted to have the most complicated challenge around safety. There are huge post-harvest losses in the region, where losses could be as high as over 50% of harvest and over 50% of waste generated in the region are classified as food waste within the food systems; we lose more than half of what we produce, and this comeswith significant impact on the environment. Inequality and power imbalances at the household, community, state and regional levels consistently constrainthe ability of the region’s food systems tosignificantly contribute to poverty reduction and sustainable, equitable livelihoods.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251 The region recognizes the need to rebuild and strengthen the regional food systems driven by radical thinking, smart partnerships, backed by strong political will and courage to advance the food systems transformation need of the region.  The envisaged food system will be development focused that prioritizes healthy diets and affordable nutrition, that is inclusive, efficient, resilient, and sustainable, while working for everyone, with ability to contribute to rebuild the economy of the region, create jobs, spur growth across sectors and sustain our ecosystems.  The regional food system narrative will be to supportnourishing beyond feeding, that makes human health and nutrition a priority, emphasizing the primacy of diet quality, that would eliminate hunger while addressing all forms of malnutrition, considers planetary health, pro-growth while supporting job creationand livelihoods, and economic sustainability.  While these transformations will be a journey, we must start by taking some strategic and immediate transition steps – the suggested steps include - Transformative policy reviews rooted in a new and common narrative and anchored on philosophy of food as a human right in line with UN conventions. - Operationalize a coordinated Food Systems data transformation agenda - Scale/Democratize proven innovations that considers the common man at the common market - Ramp up investment in Food Systems research & development - Depoliticize, expand, and modernize social protection programs in Nigeria. - Promote optimum breastfeeding practices - Operationalize resilient financing mechanisms by leveraging domestic and international facilities - Ramp up investment in infrastructures that support critical innovations & opportunities with special focus on rural infrastructures - Build critical leadership, technical and human and organizational capacities - Operationalize key guidelines rooted in transformed policies, data & the new narrative - Engage in fair trade, taking relevant country and global contexts into consideration - Foster transformative and smart partnerships - Revise and implement the National Resilience framework - Redirect Policy – aim at getting youths engaged in the agriculture sector using technology and e-commerce. - Implement plans to mechanize agricultural production to enable innovation and increase resilience and productivity with a focus on nutrition - Scale up sustainable technologies including cold chain technologies to tackle post-harvest food losses - Pass the food quality and safety bill into law - Change the culture of adequate food consumption by concentrating on the new generation, e.g., children - Put in place a monitoring framework to ensure implementation of all recommendations for the improvement of food systems by all actors236238243244245246247248249250251Discussion Topic Ensuring Access to Safe and Nutritious Food for All What actions in the next 3 years will have greatest impact on Shifting to Sustainable Consumption Patterns? The actions key out are; Strand 1: Reducing Hunger and Inequality • Maximum utilization of dams, rivers and water ways - Irrigation • Use of improved varieties of crops • Improvement of micro-climate of the zone • Increase security measures to protect farmers and herders • More investment in agricultural inputs and modern farming technology • Avails farming with agric credit facilities. • Gender mainstreaming and advocacy • Gender sensitive and responsive policies • Tracking mechanisms to curb corruption and allocation of facilities. Strand 2: Increasing Availability and Affordability of Nutritious Food. • Improve production, harvesting, preservation and processing of food produces • Eradicate food processing activities that reduces the quality and nutrients in food • Fortified foods due to losses during production • Robust extension service system • Demonstration of nutritious food during maternal and child health activities • Nutrition Education awareness • Organization and promotion of community food fair Strand 3: Ensuring safe food • Advocacy and proper training of farmers on standard operating procedures (SOP)in applying agrochemical • Good agricultural practices • Good storage facilities • Food produces testing facilities • Encourage the use of organic fertilizers and other forms of manure. What contributions will our organizations make? • Promotion of science and research for combating hunger and malnutrition. • Disseminating outcome of researches. • Encourage fundamental transformation of the food chain to full nutrition with an initiative linking human wellbeing, agriculture, and the environment. • Promote agricultural innovation and attract investment to agricultural development projects. • Legislation against the use of inappropriate farming activities e.g. agro-chemicals • Connecting researchers with industry and enhancing supply chain • Introduction of improved varieties. • Eliminate the injustices that cause hunger, working with social movements to amplify their voices and boost their efforts toward food justice and sovereignty. • Creation of sustainable sources of income and local networks for farmers to share resources with one another. How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? • Implementation of appropriate policy and good monitoring system • Reduced morbidity and mortality rate • Improved standard of living • Sustainability of the goals and actions • Better warning signal and security support system • Improvement in education and sustainable agricultural practices236239243244245246247248249250251• What actions in the next 3 years will have greatest impact on Shifting to Sustainable Consumption Patterns? The following specific actions stood out; 1. Boost income and purchasing power at the household level 2. Address state of insecurity 3. Advocate for the consumption of diversified, safe and nutritious foods that can be sustained 4. Intensive advocacy for behavioural change to address foods with low consumption patterns 5. More investment in road infrastructure 6. Promote the cultivation and consumption of improved varieties of crops 7. Promote diversification of food production through mixed farming 8. Scaling up of fish farming to generate employment and increase the purchasing power as well as increase access to animal protein 9. Initiate modular processing within farm cluster to address wastage 10. Initiate industrialization of the region to boost purchasing power of the people 11. Active involvement of youth in food value chain What contributions will our [participants] organisations make? 1. Ensure proper multi-sectoral interphase 2. Strengthening the extension services 3. Push for policies that target food production, consumption and wastage 4. Prioritize consumption of healthy food 5. Encourage homestead gardening in the grassroot 6. Push for appropriate legislation 7. Ensure continuity in policy implementation irrespective of the government in power 8. Ensure the establishment of Information Management System 9. Advocacy to the traditional rulers and community influencers. 10. Strengthening of women groups and cooperatives How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? 1. Defined indicators for assessment and evaluation 2. Setting of targets 3. Improvement in the state of health 4. Low level of malnutrition 5. Low mortality rate 6. Improved income 7. Better security 8. Early warning system236240243244245246247248249250251Discussion Topic Boost Nature - Positive Production What actions in next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion Topic? Strand 1 ▪ Promote skill acquisition and encourage Youth to embrace food entrepreneurship ▪ Government should build capacity of citizens on environmentally friendly agriculture ▪ Government should encourage alternative green energy sources for households to curb deforestation ▪ Strengthen the capacities of relevant Institutions in the region to respond to natural disasters ▪ Land allocations, tenure and use acts should support investment in agroforestry Strand 2 ▪ Enforcement of laws and policies to protect forest reserves ▪ Government should provide incentives to famers to adopt climate smart crops, irrigation and sustainable fishing ▪ Encourage skill acquisition and massive environmental education Strand 3 ▪ Diversify agricultural production by investing in high valued crops, vegetables, fruits, pasture, animals and fisheries ▪ Develop policies and best practices on use of agrochemicals and mechanised farming Strand 4 ▪ Encourage cluster farming and processing ▪ Promote alley and legume cropping to revitalize soil health ▪ Develop early warning system to alert communities prone to seasonal floods ▪ Map the current food systems in the region and build capacities of producers to be globally competitive. ▪ Curb out seasonal food wastage by value addition ▪ Ensure proper solid waste disposal Strand 5 ▪ Create adequate sensitization for the production and consumption of micro livestock ▪ There should be premium pricing for environmentally friendly agricultural products What contributions will our organisations make? ▪ Support the enactment of laws and practices that will promote sustainable environment, boost nature production and strengthen the food system in the North East, Nigeria ▪ Build famers capacities to adopt climate smart agriculture ▪ Promote the use of weather forecasting for farming operations planning ▪ Strengthen extension services and access to markets ▪ Promote Innovative technologies especially for grading, storage, processing and value addition for both crop and livestock ▪ Promotion of formal and informal education that encourages agriculture of both crops and livestock ▪ Encourage cluster farming and cottage processing of produce ▪ Support the utilisation of nutrient rich foods and fortification ▪ Promote tree planting How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? Increased awareness on anthropogenic impacts of climate change and adoption environmentally friendly actions. This means an improvement in our environment and the natural eco-systems, reduced environmental degradation and improved biodiversity. • improved biodiversity especially plants, insects (eg honey bees),fish and animals( wildlife inclusive). • Reduction in erosion and floods • Increased crops and animals’ productivity • Improve water quality for both human and agricultural purposes • Reduction in indiscriminate cutting of trees and resource based conflicts236241243244245246247248249250251Discussion Topic Advance Equitable Livelihoods What actions in next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion Topic? Strand 1 Trade laws and its impact on agriculture and food systems  Effective enlightenment on farming and food chain activities.  Provision policies that will have greatest impact on local food chain  Demarcation of statutory mandates between *MANR and *MOWR  Review Land tenure system to eliminate discrimination against women  Massive support on irrigation.  Subsidizing agricultural inputs for the marginalized and rural people.  Creation of an agency to advance the equitable livelihoods. Strand 2 Environmental problems  Protection of forest reserves  Introduction of climate smart agriculture.  Government to resuscitate the services of extension workers in the region.  Encourage the use of cooking gas in the rural areas. Strand 3 Insecurity  Creation of community policing.  Introduction of advanced technology in agriculture to reduce conflicts.  Provision of basic necessities of life in the rural areas.  Integration of IDPs in their respective host communities.  Women and youths empowerment. Strand 4 Shocks  Replicate food storages in the LGAs.  Be proactive during emergencies  Establishment of emergency agencies in the LGAs.  Strand 5 Agriculture, food and nutrition policies  Create adequate advocacy and sensitization in harnessing local foodstuffs.  Comprehensive database of farmers and the type of products cultivated.  Women and marginalized people should have access to loans at a minimum interest.  Land tenure system should favour the women especially in land inheritance. 1.12 GENDER ROLE IN THE CURRENT FOOD SYSTEMS IN THE NORTH-EAST ZONE  Empower the women in agricultural value addition chain.  Small scale cottage industries to employ more women  Promote the aggregation of women into civil societies.  Provide credit facilities for land ownership to women at a 0% interest. What contributions will our organisations make?  Support on infrastructural development of the rural and marginalized population.  Establishment of small scale industries to the local and the most vulnerable populations  Capacity building.  Developing and funding an agency to protect the social needs of the poor, women, youths and the most vulnerable in the society. How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? • Elimination of all root causes of inequality, poverty, food and nutritional insecurity amongst the poor and most vulnerable populace of the North East. • Everyone should have equal access to economic opportunities. • Protection of our environment and the natural eco-systems with efforts on tackling climate change, environmental degradation.236242243244245246247248249250251Discussion Topic Building Resilience to Vulnerabilities, shocks and Stresses What actions in next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion Topic? Strand 1 • Enact laws, strengthen security, extension services, insurances and invest in mechanization. • Provision of low interest loans, improved seeds and incentives to attract youth into agriculture. • Conduct credible livestock census to link livestock production with value chains. • Work with livestock producer associations and professionals to address issues of livestock movement as well as enforcement of ECOWAS protocol. Strand 2 • Incentivize the youth to become engaged in agriculture through knowledge sharing within the sector and improve extension services delivery. • Linking environmental policies and programmes to food security. • Provide infrastructures such as access to water and link afforestation to cattle routes. Strand 3 • Support the North East States to establish Strategic Food Reserves and Agriculture Trust Fund. • Support displaced people to have access to land and low/no interest loans. • Enhance security through peace committees and community policing. Strand 4 • Establishment of Strategic Food Reserves by Federal, States and Local governments to absorb sudden shocks and stressors occasioned by factors such pandemics, floods, rainstorms and fire disasters. • Establishment of viable Commodity Exchange and Marketing Boards with policies that will discourage price manipulations. Strand 5 • Enlighten the populace on available local nutritious foods and in right combinations. • Intensify advocacy and sensitization on the nutritive values of local food ingredients. • Capacity building on the production and packaging of dairy and meat products. Strand 6 • Establishment of women and youth empowerment interventions such as skill acquisition centres. • Intensify advocacy on value chain addition of our local foods and farm produce. • Establishment of loan schemes in animal and domestic poultry to enhance income generation and nutritional status. What contributions will our organisations make? • Construction of earth dams, herder data capture facilities and provision of livestock vaccines. • Establishment of modern Strategic Food Reserves. • Provision of modern facilities/gadgets for tackling insecurity such as terrorism, banditry, kidnapping and animal rustling. • Provision of modern agricultural implements and improved seeds/livestock. • Establishment of standard skill acquisition centres for capacity building. • Advocacy and sensitization on the fortification of local foods for adequate nutrient supply through UN agencies. How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? • The success of these actions will be reflected in increased population of healthy animals, adequate food production, improved living standard, improved human productivity, secure and peaceful communities. • Enlightened farming population, improved environmental conditions, increased productivity of crops and animals.237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251GROUP 1 • Gender equity : Empowering and strengthening of women groups and cooperatives • Diverse views : Intensive campaign and advocacy on gender disparity due to religion and cultural beliefs • Communal crisis: Effective conflict management, conflict resolution committee should be set up to prevent escalation of violence. • Natural disaster: National Emergency Management Agency should be strengthened to forecast and predict possibility of catastrophe GROUP 2 1. Women and decision making at the household level- with improved purchasing power, men will be able to play their leadership role at home and support the consumption of diversified diet 2. Cultural beliefs being difficult to address but through intensive campaign and advocacy, this can be managed effectively 3. Diverse views on the sustainability of the adoption of cold chain for perishable crops due to non-suitability of energy and power for cold storage-adoption of modular processing GROUP 3 Promotion of Agro-forestry should take cognizance of possible missuses by criminals and insurgents as hide outs. GROUP 4 • The role of religion on land inheritance by women in the sub-region. GROUP 5 • There were no divergent views in the issues raised and the approaches to ensure adequate food supply in conflict and disaster prone areas in the North East Zone. • AT5 members were unanimous in their submission.

2021-05-08 18:15:53205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/8652/135

554114

Participating states were written to formally by the convenor and the states leadership were engaged at opportune meetings where the issues and expectations of the regional food system dialogues were addressed including the expectations, participation that stressed leaving no one behind including the generation of participants at the physical and virtual meeting to ensure full participation of all involved in the food system in the states and the region. The urgency of actions to make the food systems work for everyone and the environment in the region was stressed during the preparations for the dialogue,and in all speeches, good will messages, and discussions. The dialogue agenda setting stated the principles and expectations at the meeting proper. ALL the 5 action tracks were given equal opportunities of being discussed and analysed as they relate to the region.Recognize complexity: The agenda setting reflected the complexity and inter relatedness of the 5 action tracks as well as set a common understanding of what constitute the food systems. The published issues, status and challenges of the North East’s food system was included in the agenda setting to stimulate the discussions. The setting concluded with a call to ALL participants to proffer a holistic course of action that will ensure that the food system delivers high quality diet that are affordable, healthy, nutritious and able to meet the need of all, inclusive, efficient, resilient, and sustainable.Need to plan for dialogues based on the challenges of the new normal with regards to the COVID-19 pandemic – consideration of the mode of participation (virtual or physical or both). Infrastructural limitations with internet access and quality will be a limiting factor to participation of people in areas with limited infrastructure. The build up to the exploratory dialogue in resource poor zones with limited infrastructure can be daunting.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The North East regional dialogue was a comprehensive exploration of the regions’ Food Systems along the five action tracks and levers of the UN Food Systems Summit. Participants conducted a thorough diagnosis of the food systems, including its functionality, major stakeholders, potentials, vulnerabilities, as well as opportunities for its transformation so that it can deliver high quality diet that is affordable, healthy, nutritious, inclusive, efficient, resilient, and sustainable; as well as able to meet the need of all actors of the food system. The dialogue observedthat excessive focus on agriculture value chain and food security resulted in anunintended consequenceof creating a less diverse food environment that is unable to provide needful food variety that are affordable, safe, and nutritious enough to meet the needs of all in the region. The region’s Food systems are noted to be under stress and shocks continually being disrupted as a result of the conflicts and insecurity. In addition, part of the region is threatened by climate change and stresses due to the impact of drought, flooding, erosion, inflation, the COVID-19pandemic, and conflict. Poverty, unemployment, and insufficient food reserves limit the capacity of the food systems to cope with shocks and stresses. The COVID pandemic has amplified the fragility, inequities and suboptimal functionality of the region’s food systems thus requiring significant transformations in polices, practices and business models that would make the food systems fit for purpose and enable the delivery of the most important functions rooted in robust evidence base, context and emerging regional, country global trends and realities. Most times, the vulnerable group in the region are the most affected by the challenge of food safety and the most nutritious foods are noted to have the most complicated challenge around safety. There are huge post-harvest losses in the region, where losses could be as high as over 50% of harvest and over 50% of waste generated in the region are classified as food waste within the food systems; we lose more than half of what we produce, and this comeswith significant impact on the environment. Inequality and power imbalances at the household, community, state and regional levels consistently constrainthe ability of the region’s food systems tosignificantly contribute to poverty reduction and sustainable, equitable livelihoods.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251 The region recognizes the need to rebuild and strengthen the regional food systems driven by radical thinking, smart partnerships, backed by strong political will and courage to advance the food systems transformation need of the region.  The envisaged food system will be development focused that prioritizes healthy diets and affordable nutrition, that is inclusive, efficient, resilient, and sustainable, while working for everyone, with ability to contribute to rebuild the economy of the region, create jobs, spur growth across sectors and sustain our ecosystems.  The regional food system narrative will be to supportnourishing beyond feeding, that makes human health and nutrition a priority, emphasizing the primacy of diet quality, that would eliminate hunger while addressing all forms of malnutrition, considers planetary health, pro-growth while supporting job creationand livelihoods, and economic sustainability.  While these transformations will be a journey, we must start by taking some strategic and immediate transition steps – the suggested steps include • Transformative policy reviews rooted in a new and common narrative and anchored on philosophy of food as a human right in line with UN conventions. • Operationalize a coordinated Food Systems data transformation agenda • Scale/Democratize proven innovations that considers the common man at the common market • Ramp up investment in Food Systems research & development • Depoliticize, expand, and modernize social protection programs in Nigeria. • Promote optimum breastfeeding practices • Operationalize resilient financing mechanisms by leveraging domestic and international facilities • Ramp up investment in infrastructures that support critical innovations & opportunities with special focus on rural infrastructures • Build critical leadership, technical and human and organizational capacities • Operationalize key guidelines rooted in transformed policies, data & the new narrative • Engage in fair trade, taking relevant country and global contexts into consideration • Foster transformative and smart partnerships • Revise and implement the National Resilience framework • Redirect Policy – aim at getting youths engaged in the agriculture sector using technology and e-commerce. • Implement plans to mechanize agricultural production to enable innovation and increase resilience and productivity with a focus on nutrition • Scale up sustainable technologies including cold chain technologies to tackle post-harvest food losses • Pass the food quality and safety bill into law • Change the culture of adequate food consumption by concentrating on the new generation, e.g., children • Put in place a monitoring framework to ensure implementation of all recommendations for the improvement of food systems by all actors236238243244245246247248249250251Discussion Topic Ensuring Access to Safe and Nutritious Food for All What actions in the next 3 years will have greatest impact on Shifting to Sustainable Consumption Patterns? The actions key out are; Strand 1:Reducing Hunger and Inequality • Action on insecurity in relation to farming activities. • Provision of alternative farm land in other states to diversify agricultural practices due to insecurity. • Quality control of farm input e.g. Improved varieties. • Provision of designated centers for procuring farm input and ensure timely supply of farm input • Research into sustainable and location specific technology • Strengthening agricultural extension services • Women development, empowerment and self -reliance Strand 2: Increasing Availability and Affordability of Nutritious Food. • Farmers should be trained in modern method of harvesting, handling and storage. • Provision of storage facilities and strengthen processing procedures • Enhanced nutritional value • Provision of good road network • Nutrition Education awareness • Organization and promotion of community food fair Strand 3: Ensuring safe food • Strict control of use of agro-chemical • Encourage the use of organic manure • Use of Botanical insecticide. • Control of micro-organism, insects and rodents • Enlightening farmers on proper storage and processing practices • Demonstration of nutritious food during maternal and child health activities What contributions will our organisations make? • Promotion of science and research for combating hunger and malnutrition. • Disseminating outcome of researches. • Encourage fundamental transformation of the food chain to full nutrition with an initiative linking human wellbeing, agriculture, and the environment. • Promote agricultural innovation and attract investment to agricultural development projects. • Legislation against the use of inappropriate farming activities e.g. Chemicals • Connecting researchers with industry and enhancing supply chain systems to allow farmers to bring their products to market. • Introduction of improved varieties. • Creation of sustainable sources of income and local networks that farmer to share resources with one another. How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? • Improvement in the livelihood of the farmers, herders and the people • Behaviour change towards sustainable farming system • Improvement in security issues, education and agricultural practices • Sustainability of appropriate policy and implementation • Effective monitoring and evaluation of policies • Improvement in the nutritional status , availability of food and nutritious diets236239243244245246247248249250251• What actions in the next 3 years will have greatest impact on Shifting to Sustainable Consumption Patterns? The actions identified are; 1. Improved animal protein in the household food consumption 2. Commercialization of soyabeans farming to increase the consumption of plant protein 3. Homestead cultivation and consumption of Moringa Oleifera 4. Adoption of the cultivation of biofortified food such as orange flesh sweet potato 5. Improve the purchasing power of the people by encouraging economic enterprising 6. Adequate handling of postharvest food loss and storage 7. Less dependable on cash crop 8. Encourage and empower people to venture into agriculture for family consumption 9. Prioritize animal husbandry at home 10. Adoption of community-led farm extension system 11. Extensive training of the youth on modern and sustainable agricultural system 12. Establishment of market information system 13. Creation of grazing land to enable farmer diversified their agricultural practices What contributions will our [participants] organisations make? 1. Provision of awareness and food education 2. Revival of farm extension system 3. Introduction of improved varieties 4. Incorporation of agricultural in school curriculum 5. Proper education 6. Subsidizing the production of pick bags (double bagging for storage) 7. Support farmers’ cooperative to increase purchasing power 8. Legislation against the use of chemicals 9. Effective conflict management How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? 1. Behaviour change towards healthy food consumption pattern 2. Implementation of appropriate policy 3. Continuous policy implementation 4. Sustainability of the actions 5. Monitoring and evaluation 6. Creation of a coordinating body 7. Define measurable indicators to know if progress is being made236240243244245246247248249250251Discussion Topic Boost Nature-Positive Food Production What actions in next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion Topic? Strand 1: Deploying food production systems that are ecofriendly, sustainable and resilient.  The major impediments to achieving this is our farming practices which includes indiscriminate cutting of trees, bush burning, use of agrochemicals and over grazing.  Their effect includes increased carbon dioxide emission, climate change, desert encroachment in extreme north, perennial floods in parts of Bauchi state, soil erosion, shrinkage of the lake chad basin etc. Apart from affecting the ecosystem, all this have also adversely affected food production and livelihood of the people.  The team recommended afforestation, reclaiming the Lake Chad basin, providing alternative sources of cooking energy, enacting good government policy on land classification, change to organic fertilizer and ecofriendly chemical fertilizers and water harvesting for dry season farming. Strand 2: Improving on existing food production system to benefit both people and the ecosystem.  The use of Agrochemicals (fertilizer, herbicide and pesticide) has adverse effects on the ecosystem and human wellbeing.  We advocate engaging breeders to produce pest resistant and higher yielding crop varieties.  More extension agent will also need to be engaged to disseminate the improved farming systems to the farmers.  State governments in the region should also collaborate to provide farm lands to farmers displaced by the insurgency. Strand 3: Ensuring improvement in nutrition and provision of safe food for the people.  High level of poverty, inadequate production and poor awareness on what constitute a healthy diet is a serious problem in the sub region.  The solution is ensuring sustainable production of crop and livestock.  Encouraging youths in the house holds to engage in back yard gardening, rearing of small live stocks and planting of economic trees.  Also enlightening the women on what constitutes a healthy meal. This would go along way in improving family nutrition, health, income and reducing poverty. Cross-Cutting: What contributions will our organisations make?  The organization will contribute by co-creating and sharing knowledge with the communities on improved systems of farming that are ecofriendly and impact positively on the populace.  By providing financial support to government to improve livelihood of the people and resettle the internally displaced peoples in the region. How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful?  The performance of these actions can be accessed by improvement in standard of living of the populace, higher life expectancy and lower expenditure on health.  Sustainable food production to reflect in better security and less crime rates because they are linked to resource control.236241243244245246247248249250251ADVANCE EQUITY LIVELIHOOD AND VALUE CHAIN DISTRIBUTION What actions in next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion Topic? S/N PRIORITY AREAS ACTIVITTIES 1 How can agricultural livelihood be sustainable • By educating the farmers and empowering them to be in charge of their affairs • There should be community involvement at all stages (Planning and execution stages) • Agricultural extension services should be strengthen • Data base of real farmers should be establish/ identified 2 How can this smallholder actors be well coordinated to harness their full potential and capacity • Through the formation of groups and association in various groups and values chain and enlightenment of groups dynamics • Establishment of cluster market and identification of off takers 3 How can government through our various establishment work more effectively in a coordinated manner to deliver the goals • There should be synergy and collaboration between relevant government agencies and various farmers organization • There should be policy formation and implementation 4. How can support from intervention agencies be leverage upon for food system transformation and delivery of SDG goals • Public Partners Partnership should be encouraged • Private intervention should be encourage • De-politicize the intervention proves • Ease the accessibility of fund to real farmers 5 How can women be supported to overcome the challenges limiting their participation and more productivity contributed in the Nigeria food system • Institutional support through our religions and traditional institutions • Monitoring • Capacity building of women and children/youth • Establishment of women CBOs, He for She to provide support and enlightenment • Adaptation of climate smart agriculture What contributions will our organizations make? • The various organizations will support government agencies and line ministries in executing most of the identified activities listed above • Also, the organizations and development partners will create awareness and sensitize the women and children, including people with special needs on appropriate skill acquisition and empowerment How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? • Increase in farm produce through adaptation of climate smart agriculture • Reduction in dependency on imported food and improved storage facilities across the nation • Farmers accessibility to farming equipment, improved seedling, credit facilities and availability of cluster markets • Establishment of women support group and empowering the women and children • Existence of enabling legally support policies with implementation236242243244245246247248249250251Discussion Topic [Action Track 5: Build Resilience to Vulnerabilities, Shocks and Stresses] What actions in next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion Topic?  Educating the farmers on the use of alternative inputs e.g. use of organic manure, compost, etc.  Use of briquette, solar, cooking gas etc. as an alternative fuel to replace wood and charcoals.  Sensitization of farmers on right farming practices.  Afforestation – tree planting campaign, woodlots establishment, etc  Planting of improved seeds to tackle short rainfall period.  Irrigation system to supplement rainfall.  Timely release of NIMET reports to farmers plan their farm operations.  Strong community policing (civilian JTF) to complement government effort.  Settle the nomadic herdsmen on good grazing areas to avoid clashes with farmers.  Public enlightenment to sensitize people on communal efforts, such as group farming.  Appropriate storage facilities to store food and preserve vegetable for future use.  Encourage home farming and gardening.  Empower women to embark on petty trading.  Capacity building of health workers on the basic food required by our body system.  Enrich food with soybean and essential micro and macro nutrients to supply the necessary amino acid and vitamins required by the body. What contributions will our organisations make?  Regular radio program to enlighten farmers on the market situation, and involve farmers in the design of government policy.  Avoid multiple taxation via evidence of first payment.  Enact/enforce laws to protect environment.  Establish irrigation systems to supplement rainfall.  Timely distribution of NIMET reports.  Public enlightenment on communal efforts, such as group farming.  Strengthened public schools to provide qualitative education.  Provision of greenhouses (cheaper and simply constructed) to produce food during shocks.  Provide appropriate storage facilities to store food.  Capacity building of the health workers on the basic food required by our body system.  Strengthened School feeding program using appropriate food formulation. How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? • Reduction in the cost of inputs hence cost of production which lead to increase in output. • Reduction in massive tree felling and the consequent land degradation, erosion, environmental pollution, excessive heat among others. • General public and farmers will be aware hence will desist from bad farming practices, adopt new technologies and benefit from better production, processing and marketing systems. • More job opportunities will be created through engagement in the food value chain. • Reduction in postharvest losses and increase in buffer stock thus measures against shocks and stresses • Modification of consumption pattern hence better nutrition for children, women and vulnerable groups. • As people have livelihood activities: less hunger, less restiveness and all other vices237238239240243244245246247248249250251GROUP 1 • Gender equity :Dialogues with stakeholders on gender equity due to religion and cultural beliefs • Diverse views :on householdfood and nutritious diet allocation- education and dialogues with men on gender disparity • Communal crisis: Several silent communal crises, conflict resolution committee should be set up to investigate remote causes and provide prompt solutions before is escalated. • Natural disaster: National Emergency Management Agency should be strengthened to forecast (early warning signal) GROUP 2 1. The exploit by the middlemen-the re-adoption of off-takers 2. Gender disparity in-terms of land allocation 3. Divergence on the change in the role of gender especially in areas grossly affected by insurgency where women are becoming the household head Equitable control of the resources-continuous education and dialogues with men on gender equity GROUP 3  The members of this group though from different backgrounds, were able to dialogues amicable to foster a way forward to achieve the goal of zero hunger by the year 2030.

2021-05-08 18:48:12205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/8657/135

131327226191401435763331531914148683335

None of the action tracks was given more importance than another. Stakeholders’ groups were given the opportunity to engage among themselves and diagnose the food systems from where they stand and come to the dialogue with consensus ideas and also areas of divergence.Complement the work of others: Prior to the exploratory dialogues held across the 6 geopolitical zones of Nigeria, FAO supported the process by commissioning a review of evidence and actions currently on-going in the country. The paper was provided to the identified facilitators ahead of the dialogues so that they could come up with questions to guide the discussions and probe for more information and suggestions for improving our food systems to ensure that they deliver high quality diet and affordable nutrition; are inclusive, efficient, resilient, and sustainable; and work for everyoneThe discussions within stakeholder groups are very critical to harvesting actionable areas that can improve our food systems. If possible and feasible, these should be supported through facilitation and with funding.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The major focus of the exploratory dialogues at the geopolitical level was to create an opportunity for engagement and interconnection among a broader set of stakeholders than was possible at the Inception dialogue at the National level - to explore food systems from a wide variety of perspectives, identify promising options for their improvement and consider ways in which different the groups of stakeholders can advance these options as contributions to the national pathway towards sustainable food systems. It was clear from discussions that there was very little understanding, even among policy makers that the excessive focus on agriculture and food security resulted in creating a less diverse food environment that is unable to provide an adequate variety and affordable, safe, and nutrient dense food. It was also very clear that more dialogues focussed on specific areas are still needed to harvest suggestions of game changers among various stakeholder groups. The major challenges facing the Nigeria Food Systems were identified by stakeholders to include - low public investments in the Agricultural sector resulting in underdeveloped rural infrastructure such as roads, storage facilities and processing facilities, as well as a lack of agricultural extension services, and access to inputs and finance. Other challenges identified are inconsistent, uncoordinated, and inappropriate policies, coupled with inappropriate philosophy of agricultural sector development; land tenure system limiting new entrants into commercial agriculture; low technology for food production and processing; improper disposal of agricultural waste and waste from food transformation activities leading to land degradation and water pollution; loss of land and water resources, and increased deforestation, and loss of biodiversity. Other issues identified as militating against sustainable and resilient food systems are social norms leading to gender inequality and limited access to productive assets and weak integration of youth and women in agriculture. Poverty was also cited as limiting the access of majority of the population to diverse and nutritious diets. Efforts were made by the facilitators to get the stakeholders to suggest ways they think the challenges they have identified could be addressed.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251To ensure that the food production systems produce good quality and nutritionally adequate food commodities, stakeholders recommended the promotion and encouragement of the use of improved high yielding varieties of crops and livestock to increase productivity, and the provision of incentives to farmers in form of subsidy. An associated recommendation is the reduction of dependence on rainfed agriculture and the promotion of irrigation methods that will shift focus to dry season production to ensure all year-round availability and affordability of nutritious foods, and the adoption of climate smart and nutrition responsive agricultural practices across the zone. To conserve the environment, stakeholders believe that a gradual shift from the use of inorganic fertilizers to the use of organic fertilizers, and the proper use of herbicides and pesticides will protect the environment and support efforts towards ensuring the safety of agricultural produce and prevent food borne illnesses related to food safety issues. . Stakeholders also called for the enforcement of existing laws and regulations that prevent environmental degradation, and for the protection of the ecosystem against new conversions for food and feed production. The efficient recycling of waste, and the use of solar smoking kiln for fish and as against the traditional smoking method that uses wood smoke was also suggested as a means to protecting the health of the environment and of the people. Stakeholders called for the promotion of urban agriculture particularly for the production of vegetables and fruits for household consumption and the sale of the excess production for income generation. The enhancement of access to land for female farmers was also suggested as a way to ensuring household food access. Stakeholders opined that the provision of basic rural infrastructure will facilitate access of farmers to the market so as to reduce wastage, and curb the rising rate of rural urban migration, which in itself is a major underlying cause for household food insecurity and the rising levels of malnutrition in the country. Stakeholders concluded that post-harvest losses can be drastically reduced through the encouragement of on-farm processing activities and the provision of gender appropriate processing equipment, and the associated linkages to off takers. The creation and revival of commodity boards was proposed as a means of addressing the issue of waste and linkages to off takers. The rehabilitation of, and the use of silos in each of the Local Government areas was also put forward as a means to reducing food post-harvest loses. To ensure the consumption of nutritious, safe, and diverse foods, stakeholders suggested a massive public enlightenment programme because they believe that a large proportion of the population do not have the information to be able to make informed decisions about what they should or should not eat. They also believe that there should be awareness creation on the benefits of consuming healthy, nutritious, and diverse foods. Stakeholders recommended the urgent implementation of the following actions to kick start the process of repairing the NC geopolitical zone food systems. 1) Promotion of private sector agricultural extension systems to complement the public sector system for providing extension service to farmers along with awareness creation on the consumption of healthy diets. 2) Promotion of efficient storage techniques for various commodities and facilitating access to such. 3) Provision of basic rural infrastructure by government or through PPP. 4) Positioning & strengthening of research institutes to engage in demand driven research, clarifying their mandates, and monitoring their performances. 5) Setting out regulations and sanctions for environmental degradation from Agro-processing waste. 6) Government to work in partnership with private extension service providers, CSOs/NGOs to build capacity and strengthen extension service delivery. 7) Ensure that farmers have access to early maturing & disease resistant varieties of crops and livestock. 8) Massive enlightenment and sensitization of the general public on the benefits of afforestation and the challenges associated with deforestation. 9) Conflict management and reforms aimed at moderating clashes between farmers and herders. 10) Creating and maintaining a database of farmers to ensure that productive inputs reach practising farmers. 11) Strengthening the agricultural insurance scheme and breaking the monopoly of NAIC in this area. 12) Put in place a monitoring framework to ensure implementation of all recommendations for the improvement of food systems by all actors.236238243244245246247248249250251Challenges and possible solutions to providing quality, safe and nutritious foods for all along the food systems What actions in next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion Topic? Strand 1: Reducing hunger and inequality • Preponderance of smallholder farmers in agricultural agriculture. • High cost of land preparation. • Low agricultural productivity. • Politics in the distribution of farm inputs. • Lack of awareness and capacity for farmers to uptake production technology. • Lack of nutritious food for human consumption. • Low level dry season farming. Strand 2: Increasing availability and affordability of nutritious foods • Increased postharvest loss. • Food price anomalies due to poor linkages between production and distribution. • Lack of adequate storage facilities. • Poor uptake of research outputs. • Lack of farmers education/capacity. • Poor linkages to markets. • Poor rural infrastructure. • Lack of modern farming and processing equipment. • Shocks and stresses to the agricultural production systems. • Widespread insecurity. Strand 3: Ensuring safe food • Lack of quality planting materials. • High import duties on materials for construction of food processing machines. • Sale of deteriorated perishable crops in the markets as a result of poor access to efficient storage and transportation. • Indiscriminate use of agrochemicals. • Poor awareness on the need to consume nutritious and safe food. • Lack modern processing machines. • Lack of proper vaccination of animals. • Use of woods consisting of carcinogenic compounds for the roasting of fish/meat. • Lack of sensitization on proper packaging of processed foods. Cross-Cutting • Problem of insecurity of farmers and their produce. • Problem of natural disaster. • Lack of farmers education/capacity development. • Lack of awareness and capacity development of the farmers in terms of technology demonstration and adoption. • Lack of community sensitization. What contributions will our organisations make? • Small-Scale Women Farmers Organization of Nigeria to produce more nutritious food • Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) to implement policies. • Ministry of Health to engage in sensitization and promotion of healthy living and consumption of safe foods. • Civil Society Organizations to advocate for increase in private extension systems and increase allocation to Agriculture. • MARD/ ADPs for awareness creation to strengthen extension services. • MARD to encourage use of improved crop varieties and good manufacturing practices (GAP). • MARD to encourage organic farming. • MARD to encourage production of organic fertilizer to reduce environmental pollution. • CBN to expand anchor borrower program to cover more value chains. How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? • Higher crop productivity. • Biofortified crops available in the market. • Increased number of extension agents. • Production inputs are subsidized for small holder farmers. • Farmers have easy access to credit and insurance facilities. • Improved market linkages. • Increased youth engagement in the agricultural sector. • Improved access to land for cluster farming, credit, and insurance for women farmers. • Availability of affordable gender friendly farming and processing equipment/machines. • Easy access to irrigation and storage facilities. • Improved rural roads. • Reduced tariffs on materials for equipment fabrication. • Increased number of agro-processing zones. • Absence of deteriorated crops in markets236239243244245246247248249250251Discussion Topic Shift to healthy and sustainable consumption patterns What actions in next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion Topic? • Create awareness, advocate for, and educate on safe and healthy food consumption • Farmers to embrace market-driven production to enhance income and purchasing power • Dry season farming to ensure all year-round availability • Revisit neglected and underutilised foods • Scale up school feeding programme • Promote integrated farming and backyard farming and work into primary and secondary school curriculum • Promote high yielding crop varieties • Strengthen linkages between research, policy, and practice • Improve rural infrastructure • Adaptation indigenous processing and storage methods, and explore modern technologies • Price control and regulation of activities of middlemen • Provide incentives for healthy consumption and production of healthy food by food and beverage companies • Use community-based extension volunteers for food demonstrations using locally sourced healthy foods • Identify other sources for agricultural financing • Strengthen farmer-groups and other rural associations for community development • Encourage contract farming with buy-back arrangements • Perfect recycling process for agricultural waste • Reposition and strengthen agricultural research institutes. • Create awareness and educate on dangers of unhealthy environment • Enforce existing regulation and sanction for environmental degradation • Regulate chemical use in all aspects of agricultural production • Intensify consumer protection activities What contributions will our organisations make? • Religious and traditional leaders, opinion moulders, local leaders and the media will contribute to awareness creation and education on need for healthy food consumption and environmental sustainability • Ministries of Health and Environment will enforce regulations on environmental degradation • Agriculture research institutes with mandates for processing and storage will develop technologies for processing and storage • Agricultural Research Council of Nigeria (ARCN) will review and revise mandates of Research Institutes in line with current realities. • Regulatory agencies will enforce existing regulations to prevent the nefarious activities of some food and beverage companies • Federal and state Ministries of Agriculture, through the Agricultural Development Projects, will ensure prompt dissemination of information on safe and healthy food consumption, and on environmental sustainability. • The federal and states Ministries of Education will mainstream integrated and backyard farming into primary and secondary school curriculum. • Farmer groups, other rural associations and banking institutions will provide farm credit How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? • Reduction in the current rates of malnutrition indices and related deaths • Reduction diet related illnesses such as type 2 diabetes, cancer, obesity etc. • Reduction in percentage annual food loss • Increase in demand for safe and healthy foods • Increase in production and utilisation of neglected and underutilised crops • Reduction in environmental degradation • Increased alternative uses of agricultural waste236240243244245246247248249250251Discussion Topic Boost nature-positive food production at scale What actions in next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion Topic? • Massive afforestation/reforestation. • Encouraging the production of cover crops, to control erosion. • Converting wastes to wealth through efficient waste recycling systems. • Revisiting the land tenure laws. • Promoting the use of organic fertilizers as against the use of inorganic ones. • The use of biological methods of pest control and food preservation. • Discouraging the use of chemical for fish farming. • Enacting and enforcing laws against the use of scoop nets for artisanal fish harvesting, to preserve fingerlings, especially of rare species. • Promoting the use of solar smoking kiln for fish processing. • Discouraging the use of firewood for cooking, through the use of gas cooking facilities. • Increasing the diversity of crops/fish by implementing laws for their conservation. What contributions will our organisations make? • Capacity building through strengthening our extension delivery (extension agents, civil society organizations, non-governmental organizations). • Provision of ecosystem-friendly fishing inputs (Ministry of Agriculture and research institutes) • Establishing hatcheries for fingerlings (Ministry of Agriculture) • Encouraging access to early maturing and disease resistant varieties (Ministry of Agriculture) • Sensitization of food system actors on following climate reports (NIMET and Ministry of Communications) • Sensitization on the benefits of afforestation and the dangers of deforestation (CSOs, Ministries of Communication; Environment and Forestry) • Enacting and enforcing laws against negative nature-food production practices. • Improving synergy between the state/federal government and regional/international organizations (like ECOWAS, UN) on desertification. • Developing climate-smart varieties. How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? • At least, a 50% increase in the number of trees in the next three years, • Periodic environmental assessment. • A review of the current Land Use Act. • Having stable budget plans, budget lines, budget releases and monitoring/evaluation for the suggested actions.236241243244245246247248249250251Advance Equitable Livelihoods and Value Distribution What actions in next 3 years will have greatest impact on the above 1. Deliberate policy formulation and implementation to promote gender inclusiveness along the food system in North Central Nigeria 2. States to develop strategies to domesticate and implement all existing International and National Gender Policies. 3. Women and other vulnerable groups should be given access and opportunities for social investment schemes. 4. Advocacies to traditional leaders, Religious leaders, and Social-Cultural organizations to abolish cultures and norms that discriminates access to resources by women and other excluded groups in the communities. 5. Review of the land tenure system to create opportunity for women access to land. 6. Trade laws and tariff: The need for only one body to regulate collection of agricultural Tariff 7. Environmental problem: The need to rehabilitate canals and irrigation infrastructures in the State. 8. Afforestation laws and policy: promotion of smokeless stoves, the use of biogas and animal dung as alternative to wood. 9. Continuous sensitization of farmers on climate smart Agriculture. 10. Food system and insecurity: Can be addressed by encouraging entrepreneurship opportunities for youths to engage in farming which will promote food production and reduced vulnerability of youth to social vices 11. Promotion of Homestead agriculture 12. Periodic update of farmers database for equitable distribution of inputs. What contributions will our organisations make? Civil Society Organizations / Ministry of information: Information dissemination from urban to rural; Policy reforms and implementation; Advocacy to market on various Government schemes; Advocacy for increase funding into the Agriculture Sector; monitor investment in Agriculture; and Public sensitization and orientation. Ministries of Agriculture: Promote Good agricultural practices among rural farmers; Promote adoption of modern technology in agricultural operations by farmers; train Small holder farmers especially women on food processing, packaging as well as hygienic food handling; train farmers on value addition; Strengthen extension services; and, Empower Farmers and other vulnerable groups for alternative income generating activities. Ministries of budget and Economic planning: ensure that resources are adequately allocated to Agricultural infrastructures; make contingencies plans for emergency support to vulnerable groups before international intervention; strengthen Agricultural Research institutes and colleges; ensure needs assessment, participatory approach, for effective inclusiveness during project planning; create database of real farmers; and strengthen insurance scheme for farmers. How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? 1. Improvement in involvement of women and youth in Food system activities 2. Increase in number of women in leadership positions at community level 3. Discriminating laws and norms are renounced by communities to pave way for inclusiveness of women and youth in decision making.236242243244245246247248249250251Discussion Topic Build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress What actions in next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion Topic? Social Resilience 1. Develop and implement an Institutional Framework to enhance resilience and reduce vulnerabilities within the Food System; and formulate policies to support the Framework. 2. Develop/strengthen systems to provide farmers with information on onset and retreat of rains, and best time to plant. 3. Develop critical rural infrastructure for farm-market linkages, and storage. 4. Review primary and secondary school Curricula to promote proper nutrition and develop interest in agriculture. 5. Identify and abrogate obnoxious practices that are discriminative against women. 6. Develop agricultural commodity data bases for planning purposes. 7. Strengthen Extension Services including e-extension and make private extension services work. 8. Harness Indigenous Knowledge to support farmers. 9. Develop strategies to make land accessible to farmers irrespective of gender. 10. Review security apparatus including state policing to reduce conflicts and banditry. 11. Provide irrigation facilities for farmers. 12. Review State Agricultural Polices to make them responsive to the challenges of the Food System. Economic Resilience 1. Build capacity of staff in relevant MDAs to properly respond to challenges within the Food System. 2. Adopt climate smart and nutritionally responsive practices. 3. Ensure access to credit and insurance for all stakeholders in the Food System. 4. Revise budgets to respond to the challenges identified along the Food System. 5. Establish/strengthen aggregation centers and off-taker agreements. 6. Establish/strengthen farmers’ associations and cooperatives. Environmental Resilience 1. Protect watersheds and associated streams from drying up. 2. Engage traditional institutions to reduce conflicts and banditry and strengthen local policing arrangements. 3. Control deforestation and facilitate afforestation. 4. Promote urban agriculture. 5. Promote cooking with clean fuels, and other alternatives. What contributions will our organisations make? 1. Support policy formulation/review for the Food System. 2. Provide leadership for the response. 3. Manage budget process to implement the various actions and plans. 4. Work to rapidly improve the ease of doing business. 5. Work to provide resources for infrastructure development. How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? 1. Institutionalizing food system management. 2. Track Food System improvement actions. 3. Conduct Social Auditing to know what is working from the people’s perspective.237238239240243244245246247248249250251GROUP 1 • Linkage of large family size to poverty and hunger. • Effectiveness of the School feeding program GROUP 2 1. Pursuing market-driven production to enhance farmers’ income versus low dietary diversity for the family. 2. Government investment in value addition to agricultural produce to reduce wastage, and failure of government owned businesses. 3. Contract farming and controversies around contractual agreements in the face of price fluctuations. 4. Subsidies for agricultural inputs, and targeting of intended beneficiaries – are subsidies needed when they go only to political farmers? GROUP 3  Establishing RUGA settlements to address the issue of livestock production vis-a-vis green gas emission. State governments should meet with relevant stakeholders on the suitability of the programme given their ecological differences.  Preference for inorganic fertilizers compared to organic ones. There should be sensitization/capacity building on the benefits associated with the use of organic fertilizers. GROUP 4 1. Women leadership and Religious/Cultural Believes 2. Youthful exuberant and purposeful leadership responsibility 3. Impatience among the youths versus delayed gratification GROUP 5 1. Review of electoral to elect right leaders who will guarantee effective Food Systems, and the school of thought that knowledge and experiences are not as critical as mindset in ensuring quality leadership that will strengthen food systems. 2. Some believed that indigenous knowledge is not enough and experiences from elsewhere are usually better. Others think otherwise

2021-05-08 19:42:25205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/8666/135

1241247658341184329521471135815471217710261103

The four state in the cluster for this dialogue jointly planned the event, the number of participants from each stakeholder group, and from each state; multistakeholder inclusivity was embraced in the organization and implementation of the dialogue.Complement the work of others: Prior to the exploratory dialogues held across the 6 geopolitical zones of Nigeria, FAO supported the process by commissioning a review of evidence and actions currently on-going in the country along the Food System domains in the geo-political zones. The paper was provided to facilitators ahead of the dialogues for them to come up with questions to guide the discussions and probe for more information and suggestions for improving our food systems to ensure that they deliver high quality diet and affordable nutrition; are inclusive, efficient, resilient, and sustainable; and work for everyone Recognize complexity: The executive governor of Nasarawa state and all policy makers in attendance paid special attention to the complexity of food systems in their speeches and this eventually played a great role in getting participants at the dialogue to look at the challenges facing the food systems through this lens. The dialogue was greatly enriched because no stakeholder felt that its role was more important than another.The discussions within stakeholder groups are very critical to harvesting actionable areas that can improve our food systems. If possible and feasible, these should be supported through facilitation and with funding.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The major focus of the exploratory dialogues at the geopolitical level was to facilitate engagement and discussions among a broader set of stakeholders than was obtainable during the Inception dialogue. The dialogue explored the food systems from a wide variety of perspectives, identified promising options for their improvement and considered ways in which the different groups of stakeholders can advance these options as contributions to the national pathway towards sustainable food systems. The dialogue explored the five action tracks in five groups and examined the links between the action tracks at plenary when the groups made their presentations. The discussions centred around the many challenges across the food systems – challenges chief of which is post-harvest losses and food wastage; declining productivity; gender inequality; lack of resilience in the food systems; and a poor mix of policies. The dialogue identified the roles of various stakeholders in ensuring that the broken food systems are fixed, and how the various stakeholders will be mobilised to deliver what is required from each of them in achieving sustainable food systems that work for everyone.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Stakeholders believed that the exploratory dialogue was necessary in an effort to improve food and nutrition security, reduce hunger and malnutrition, and identify challenges with the food systems from multiple perspectives including voices seldom heard; and that it provided an opportunity to debate, collaborate, and take actions to address challenges identified. The main findings and conclusions are presented by action track. Action Track 1: Stakeholders recommended an increase in public investments in the agricultural sector to improve rural infrastructure such as roads, storage, and processing facilities, as well as total overhaul of the agricultural extension system by encouraging private sector investments and recruiting and training more public sector extension staff. Other recommendations improving access of smallholder farmers to inputs, finance, and insurance; encouraging diet diversification through mixed home gardens and urban agriculture; promoting ‘good agriculture practices’ and discouraging unsafe practices to speed up ripening of fruits; and facilitating linkages of smallholder farmers to markets to prevent post-harvest losses. The government was called upon for consistent, coordinated, and appropriate policies, alongside appropriate philosophy for development of the agricultural sector; and mainstreaming of gender considerations in different aspects of the food system, including access to land. Action track 2:Stakeholders recommended awareness creation for policy makers on importance of food systems for food and nutrition security, job creation and economic development; and the challenges facing our food systems together with actions needed to fix them. Other recommendations include strengthening of nutrition divisions in various Ministries, Departments and agencies of government, and ensuring budgetary provision and release for nutrition program implementation; implementing an enlightenment campaign on diet diversity, healthy eating and home food fortification using micronutrient powders; identifying and promoting efficient storage and transportation facilities for agricultural produce and reactivating commodity boards for price regulation; rehabilitating and putting exiting silos into use; promoting and facilitating access of small holder farmers to appropriate scale of irrigation facilities for year-round farming; investing in identification and promotion of neglected and forgotten food crops; developing and disseminating food based dietary guidelines; and increasing investments in Primary Health Care sector to provide nutrition education/counselling, and monitor child growth. Government, and CSOs were called upon to work with traditional, religious, and community leaders to continuously engage with their subjects on the importance of consuming safe and nutritious foods to good health. Action track 3: Recommendations include protection of the ecosystem against new conversions of land for food and feed production by promoting crop intensification; use of cover crops to reduce soil degradation and erosion; investing in breeding of crops for high yields and improved attributes including biofortification; facilitating sustainable management of food production systems to benefit the environment and people through good agriculture practices (GAP); restoring degraded ecosystems and rehabilitating the soil for sustainable food production through renewed afforestation efforts, and scaling up the use of organic soil amendments, crop rotation and intercropping. Action track 4: The recommendations include encouraging and supporting the setting up and functioning of cooperative societies for women and other vulnerable groups; and promoting ‘Village Savings Association Model’ to facilitate access to credit, inputs, and trainings; providing access to land for cultivation by vulnerable groups, e.g., women, youth, persons living with disabilities, new settlers, and other marginalized groups at community level; addressing social norms and practices that systematically provide privileges to some groups over others; eliminating market access barriers, and social exclusion for vulnerable groups; ensuring that social protection schemes reach the intended beneficiaries; promoting the use of clean energy; and identifying alternate sources of funding for interventions apart from the government. Action track 5: Recommendation include facilitation of timely access to improved breeds of livestock and seeds/seedlings for small holder farmers; reduction of deforestation, increasing access to land for women and other vulnerable groups; developing a food security dashboard that tracks the implementation of programs such as safety nets, CCTs, etc.; encouraging participation of of vulnerable groups.236238243244245246247248249250251Discussion Topic Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all What actions in next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion Topic? Strand 1: Reducing hunger and inequality 1. Support Small Holder Farmers to increase productivity with modern techniques. 2. Establish commodities and cooperative societies for marketing and financing. 3. Revive Public Agriculture Extension Services and encourage development and operationalization of Private Extension Service. 4. Rehabilitate/construct rural roads to improve food distribution. 5. Facilitate easy access to appropriate irrigation facilities. 6. Invest in land clearing to improve access to farmlands. 7. Create awareness on the various aspects/elements of the Food System and critical actions that are required to improve them. 8. Provide/improve access to credit and insurance for Food System stakeholders. 9. Invest in post-harvest storage systems including appropriate transportation. 10. Equip and deploy trained agro rangers to protect farms from vandalization. 11. Fund research on various components of the Food System to inform programmes and actions. 12. Engage young people to determine/enlist their interests in various aspects of the Food System and facilitate their entry. 13. Develop mentoring programmes across different domains of the Food System to support new entrants. 14. Review school curricula to include nutrition education and making the food systems work for everyone. 15. Revise agriculture education at the tertiary level to include a focus on the Food System. 16. Revive Commodity Marketing Boards to regulate/stabilize prices of farm products and facilitate off taker arrangements for small holder farmers. Strand 2: Increasing availability and affordability of nutritious foods 1. Create awareness on diet diversity and consumption of nutritious foods. 2. Encourage diversification in crop production. 3. Promote urban and peri-urban farming for diet diversity. 4. Discourage pre-mature harvesting of crops through awareness creation and enforcement of standards. 5. Promote use of organic soil amendments. 6. Facilitate access to credit and insurance for all Food Systems actors. Strand 3: Ensuring safe food 1. Create awareness and build capacity of stakeholders on food safety. 2. Prevent abuse of agro-chemicals. Cross-Cutting 1. Develop capacities for all food system domains. 2. Mainstream gender in different aspects of the food system. 3. Use ICT in Food System process management What contributions will our organisations make? MINISTRY OF FINANCE BUDGET & PLANING 1. Revise annual Budgets to include actions to improve the Food System. 2. Revise States’ Agricultural Policy and its implementation plan to respond to Food systems’ challenges identified. 3. Engage development partners for partnerships to develop the Food System. MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE 1. Purchase farming equipment and distribute to cooperative societies as well as farmers’ associations. 2. Enhance the capacity of Extension Service Providers. MINISTRY OF WOMEN AFFAIRS 1. Engage development partners for women empowerment. 2. Focus on women groups for capacity building How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? 1. Periodic and annual review of Food System improvement actions across MDAs. 2. Monitoring the food system to ensure that suggested actions are implemented. 3. Deploying ICT tools to monitor performances of actors along the Food System.236239243244245246247248249250251Shift to health and sustainable consumption patterns (Action Track 2) What actions in next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion Topic? • Awareness creation and communication with policy makers about food system • Strengthening of nutrition units/divisions of MDAs to perform their functions • Awareness creation on health dietary habits, home food fortification and supplementation • Promote efficient storage facilities, expand use of exiting silos. • Encourage year-round farming • Promote backyard farming • Revisit neglected food crops for potential to improve diet diversity and nutrition • Develop nutrition guidelines for consumers, and food industries • Promote dietary diversity through backyard farming, and address problem of poverty • Policy redirection to promote consumption of safe and nutritious foods. • Translate data to formats for effective engagement with communities, media, and policy makers • Improve storage system • Promote appropriate timing of harvest • Create platforms for linking farmers to processors, marketers, and other up takers. • Improve rural infrastructure • Reactivate commodity Boards • Develop policies and implementation plans to address post-harvest losses • Implement the multi-sectoral Food and Nutrition Plan of Action. • Increase investments in Health sector • Scaling up behavior change interventions that will increase consumption of healthy and sustainable diets What contributions will our organisations make? Health Sector: • Create awareness on healthy dietary habits • Enforce food safety standards • Promote age-appropriate breastfeeding practices • Promote consumption of fresh and nutrient dense foods • Carry out food demonstration • Promote Home food fortification through use of Micronutrients Powders Agricultural Sector • Ensure that farmers have timely access to improved high yielding, pest resistant, climate smart seeds and seedlings. • Facilitate establishment and maintenance of strategic food reserves • Encourage year-round farming • Promote School agriculture programs and home stead gardens • Promote income generating activities women. • Advocate for engagement of more extension agents How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? • Reduction in the prevalence of undernutrition and micro-nutrient deficiencies • Increase in number of people reached with nutrition education • Increased consumption of micronutrient rich foods, • Decreased consumption of sugar sweetened beverages, fried snacks, and carbonated drinks • Reduction in prevalence of NCDs • Availability of Agricultural and nutrition data • Increased number of households with backyard farms. • Availability of dietary guidelines • Reduction in food waste and post-harvest losses, especially for fruits and vegetables • Increased number of schools establishing school gardens • Increased investments in rural infrastructural236240243244245246247248249250251Boost Nature-Positive Food Production at Scale What actions in next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion Topic? 1. PROTECT natural ecosystems against new conversions for food and feed production a) Breeding high yielding crop varieties/ Bio- fortification b) Crop Intensification c) Use of cover crops to reduce soil degradation d) Evidence based Soil amendment e) Farmers to plan and organize farm operation ahead of planting season f) Control use of Agro chemicals g) Complementary use of organic fertilizers 2. SUSTAINABLY MANAGE existing food production systems to the benefit of both nature and people a) Good Agriculture Practice (GAP) b) Crop rotation and intercropping c) Promote use of Bio pesticides 3. RESTORE degraded ecosystems and rehabilitate soil function for sustainable food production a) Afforestation b) Practice Agro-forestry c) Use of organic soil amendments and gradually scale down use of inorganic fertilizers d) Use of cover crops. What contributions will our organisations make? Ministry of Finance • Budget provision for farmer education on the need for reclamation of ecosystem. AFAN • Educate members on the need to practice Good Agricultural Practices to protect the ecosystem States’ Ministry of Agriculture • Intensify extension service delivery and increase number of extension agents. • Create awareness around bad practices that destroy the ecosystem. • Re-stock natural water bodies with fishes • Approve and implement State Agricultural policy. • Advance development of regional/zonal Agricultural policy. Tertiary Institutions • Modify curriculum to promote Agripreneural Skills Acquisition • Research towards increasing agricultural productivity that are nature positive ASSAPIN: • Promote private sector extension services provision • Advocate for inclusive budget formulation. SMALL SCALE WOMEN: • Encourage women to plant economic trees • Advocate for establishment of community woodlot to reduce deforestation. How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? 1. Improved budget provision for Agricultural sector 2. Improved water and environment quality 3. Increased productivity 4. Increased awareness on ways to restore degraded ecosystems 5. Reduction in food prices236241243244245246247248249250251Advancing Equitable Livelihoods and Value Distribution What actions in next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion Topic? • Strengthening existing cooperative societies. • Growing grasses for livestock through cooperative societies • Confronting social norms and practices that systematically give privilege to some groups over others • Eliminating market and institutional failures and social exclusion. • Promoting Village Savings associations to enable disadvantaged group access loans, inputs, and trainings. • Promoting cattle ranching • Implementing Social safety net programs to protect vulnerable groups and mitigate livelihood shocks. • Fabricating agro-processing equipment locally • Empowering rural people in renewable energy • Building trust between Government, NGOs, and the vulnerable groups. • Sourcing of funding for interventions apart from other than government. What contributions will our organisations make? 1. Office of the Humanitarian Service/Focal Person FGN • Nasarawa State Cash Transfer Programme (NSCTP) - Distribution of funds - Encouraging beneficiaries to form cooperatives and savings 2. “Nasarawa Arise” Group: • improving education, science, technology, environment, and climate change • Skill acquisition programmes for youths, women and disabled • Establishment of food pyramids 3. Benue State Government • Adopting and implementing the template and food systems structure provided by BMGF and World Bank 4. Plateau State Government: • Implement State development plans for addressing inequalities in distribution of livelihoods. 5. Ministries of Agriculture and Water Resources: • Prioritising the vulnerable in selection of beneficiaries for interventions • Inclusiveness in distribution of inputs 6. YMCA (Nasarawa State), NAWEA (Benue State) CCDP (Plateau State): • Establishment of Savings and Loans Associations How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? • Equal access to basic infrastructure, public goods, and ecosystem services. • Increased in decision-making power of vulnerable groups. • Significant reduction in inequality • Significant reduction in social norms and practices that privilege groups over others.236242243244245246247248249250251BULDING RESILIENCE TO VULNERABILITIES, SHOCKS AND STRESSES What actions in next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion Topic? Actions to strengthen resilience and livelihoods. - Support farmers with soft loans like trader loans - Provide improved breeds of livestock and seeds/seedlings to farmers - Timely release of farm inputs to farmers that meet the right agricultural cycle - Create awareness through the media about resilience Action for climate change adaptation - Provide farmers with mechanized tools - Encourage ranching so that organic fertilizer is generated to reduce use of inorganic fertilizers. Actions to guarantee regeneration of ecosystems and nature - Reduce deforestation - Encourage tree planting Action to maintain functioning food system in the wake of shocks - Increase the access to land ownership by women and other vulnerable groups - Develop a food security dashboard that tracks the implementation of programs such as safety nets, CCTs, etc. - Enact a food safety bill that supports inclusion of vulnerable groups - Govt should distribute facilities and Agric inputs through Agric Measures to put in place to absorb effects shocks to the food system - Encourage cooperative contribution (thrift collection) to save for rainy days - Prioritize spending, encourage personal savings (Social resilience) - Practice Mixed crop farming - Improved storage facilities - Urban farming Ensuring that credit facilities and Agric input reach the target respondent - Disbursement of facilities through cooperative groups - Monitoring and supervision of Cooperative groups by relevant Ministries - Evidence-based reportage by the media to ensure accountability for disbursements How to use monitoring and evaluation for decision making - Collection of data on all farmers - Conduct NEEDS assessment for farmers - Data collection on yields per geography for proper planning and decision making What contributions will our organisations make? - Research Institutes and Higher Institutions: Promote research findings that encourage farmers to adopt new technologies - Ministries of Agriculture: Subsidize farm inputs to farmers; encourage year-round farming; Encourage backyard farming; Subsidize price of tractors to farmers especially women; Set up storage facilities for farmers to store in-season and sell at good prices off-season to reduce Post Harvest losses; Train farmers in the area of seed preservation for optimum production; and release farm inputs to meet with the farming cycle. - State governments: Establish and equip Women Development Centres at all levels; promulgate policies that will address the issue of insecurity, and for resettlement of displaced persons; rent out govt-owned lands to farmers at subsidized rates; and Re-align activities within the proposed budget provision in case of budget cuts - Civil Society Organisations: Advocacy to relevant stakeholders for upward review of budgetary allocations and Increase in political will How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? - A robust community-engagement - Institutionalization of M&E - Holding of field days and Agric shows where successes are showcased to encourage other farmers. - Organizing food demonstration sessions - Setting targets that will enable results measurement237238239240241243244245246247248249250251GROUP 1 Reactivation of Commodity Marketing Boards: Opinion that Marketing Boards should be discarded because of corruption and inefficiency versus being critical for managing costs of food and ensuring good nutrition. 2. Youths’ involvement in the Food System: Opinion that youths are not interested in agriculture because it is dirty, versus opinion that youths do not know the benefits of involvement GROUP 2 What are the divergences that are revealed and how to manage them? 1. Development of guidelines on healthy diets should be the main focus now; versus sensitization on the emergence of NCDs as a major public health challenge. 2. ‘Available data not generated locally or disaggregated to the LGA levels generating controversies among stakeholders’: versus ‘Data available but scattered - harvesting and translation of agricultural and nutrition data into formats that can be used by policy makers for decision making. GROUP 3 1. Extensification (Opening up of new Agricultural lands) vs intensification of agricultural production 2. zero tillage /mechanization/ slash & Bum 3. Land clearing campaign for commercial farming by Government / small scale production 4. Use of crop residues for mulch vs energy production (gas) vs animal feeds vs other domestic uses e.g., fencing and for building etc. 5. Shifting cultivation (fallowing) vs continuous cropping. 6. Use of inorganic fertilizer vs slow-release organic fertilizer. 7. Control fishing vs Fish farmers’ livelihood. GROUP 4 1. Discriminatory social norms: Are women and widows actually disadvantaged when it comes to access to land and resources? It was clear from different submissions that what is seen as discriminatory social norm against the vulnerable group in one community might be a normal way of life in other communities, depending on the values and level of social indoctrination on the people. But how this affects the working of the food system in the region is the main issue of concern. 2. The need for events like this: While some participants considered it a waste of resources and time to organise the events like this as nothing new will come out of discussion, majority feel it was important and necessary to have a round table discussions to know why and where we are failing to get it right.

2021-05-08 21:36:01204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/6510/203

578165117403325331321523534159213128326

“Healthier Islands through Sustainable Food Systems'' is a two-part dialogue series organized by four partners: 1) Hawai‘i Public Health Institute; 2) City and County of Honolulu- Office of Climate Change, Sustainability and Resiliency; 3) Hawai‘i Pacific University - Department of Public Health, and 4) University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa - Native Hawaiian and Indigenous Health, Office of Public Health Studies. This core group consists of members representing different fields. The organizations made a commitment to participate in the UN Food Systems Summit through a memorandum of understanding. To build trust, prior to the Independent Dialogues, a state-wide round table discussion was held on March 31, 2021 - entitled, “Our Health, Our Food Systems, Our Islands, Our People” - designed to create a process for introducing the UN Food Systems Summit to Hawai‘i. Through this initial event, the organizers developed a better understanding of the complexity of food systems and the need to accommodate a wide range of participants representing different sectors. Subsequently, the Independent Dialogues were informed by the statewide activity and enabled the core group to target key participants who could speak on farming, culture, culinary art, governance and indigenous knowledge. One of the comments was that participants in the dialogue represented the four corners of the “blue continent” - Hawai‘i, Guam, the Philippines and New Zealand. To show respect to all those engaged, the core group reached out to participants and speakers on a personal basis and had conversations around the dialogue and its purpose. Inclusivity was one of the most important aspects of developing the dialogue topics and inviting participants.The Independent Dialogues on ‘Healthier Islands through Sustainable Food Systems: Honoring culture, diversity and identity” exemplifies acting with urgency as the organizers were able to mobilize speakers and participants in a short period of time. A briefing on the UN Food Systems Summit by the curator at the opening of the meeting, provided a context for the Independent Dialogue in relation to global challenges and action and commitment to the summit as a vehicle for engagement with all possible stakeholders. Participants in the dialogue reflected multisectoriality by including farmers, teachers, advocates, community champions, policy-makers, project managers, health professionals, lawyers, urban planners and indigenous peoples. Throughout the dialogue, participants were encouraged to participate. Breakout groups were small, enabling more time for participants to share their views. This created a respectful environment where everyone's voices could be heard.Participation in the global orientation and training for convenors, curators, and facilitators was very useful in appreciating the principles of engagement. Having a core group that represents different fields of expertise is extremely useful in identifying the right participants and speakers. Forward looking statements need to be agreed upon and framed in a way that encourages engagement of a wide range of stakeholders. The UNFSS dialogue manual was very helpful in the development of some of the framing questions that were used to focus the discussions. To create a respectful environment, it is critical that facilitators are prepared and trained to handle different situations during the dialogue. The use of a short video in the plenary enables participants to grasp the complexity and far-reaching impacts of a food system. Sending out information to registrants prior to the dialogue session helped to inform participants prior for the event and prepare them for a productive event. Given this was a global virtual setting, anticipating any technical challenges beforehand ensured smooth execution of the event.

Yes

234238239240241242243244246247248249251Healthier islands through sustainable food systems seeks to underscore the convergence of food systems, health and culture through the forward looking statement: “Honoring culturally-appropriate, diverse and inclusive approaches to transformation from import dependent food systems in islands toward self-sufficient, climate-resilient and equity enhancing island food systems that emphasize the importance of community-based food security interventions and advocating for food self-sufficiency within every island.” Changing the narrative on food systems and health in island settings was a major focus of the dialogue. Culture is a critical component of food systems change due to the centrality of food in the customs and traditions of people. Reframing of the way we speak about food was captured in key statements of participants, “food is not a commodity; it defines social interaction”, “food brings people together through culture”, “food security cannot be realized without land ownership of indigenous farmers”, the land is the chief and we are the servants”, “diabetes and non-communicable diseases are social problems”, the food system is a social determinant of health,” “farming is rewarding”, “food is a public good,” “local food is the bridge between culture and the food supply chain.” Small island nations, states, territories and areas around the world are estimated to have a combined population of more than 63 million people. These island populations own a rich heritage of indigenous wisdom and knowledge on sustainability. Throughout centuries these island populations have been self-sufficient in food production and have proven to be resilient. Today, island communities face dire conditions related to economic, social and educational policies and conditions that do not optimize the potential of cultural heritage or diverse natural resources of land and sea. Today, island food systems are characterized by import dependence, lack of support for local production and small farmers, and health inequity linked to food insecurity. Island communities face common and unique food security challenges related to geographic isolation, high vulnerability to climate change and natural disasters as well as profound socio-cultural displacement of indigenous knowledge and practices in food production that have been destroyed in the past century. COVID19 has unmasked severe health inequities in island populations as disruptions in food supply chains pushed many into poverty and hunger. Using indigenous knowledge, island communities have the power to use their own solutions to address food insecurity. Bringing families and communities together to connect over food and identity is critical to revival and pride in one’s culture. Bringing people and communities to connect with the ‘aina (land) and caring for the land is also an important cultural practice. Individuals need to remind each other that what we eat, how we prepare our food, how we eat, how we share our food -- are all facets of who we are. Our identity is linked to food systems. Therefore food systems must be culturally appropriate. Bringing together various stakeholders will be essential to think through these strategies and come to a consensus as to action steps for the coming years.235238239240243244246247248249251Why we need to act urgently To date, most island states and territories rely almost completely on imported food (up to 90%). Historical drivers of import-dependent food systems in islands include colonization, militarization, rapid development, industrialization, urbanization and westernization of diets. Small and indigenous farmers and producers of food are the hungriest, the poorest and the most malnourished. Progressive devaluation of indigenous food culture and practices impacts negatively on youth translating into loss of identity - and consequently the loss of purpose -- resulting in disproportionately higher rates of delinquency, substance abuse, and criminality. Unhealthy food is an underlying factor in the NCD crisis in islands where diabetes, obesity, and hypertension cause the highest premature death rates in the world. Food is not just a commodity, but a public good. Access to healthy food is a human right. Indigenous knowledge and practices around food production is the key to equity, sustainable food production, food security, and environmental protection in island settings. What we need to do together Island states, nations, and territories around the world must work together to protect and promote indigenous knowledge, wisdom and practices on food systems. ACTION POINT: Sustained dialogue and advocacy for preservation of indigenous knowledge on food must continue through existing and new networks that foster collaboration for sustainable island food systems throughout the world. How we will do it Comprehensive approaches/strategies that engage all sectors (i.e. agriculture and environment; production and farming; delivery and processing; marking, distribution and purchasing; consumption and waste; etc.) are essential for change. Honing in on a social movement was recommended to transform a food system that is unsustainable and has negative health impacts. A whole-of-society approach is needed. A social movement will restore, rediscover, revive and reconnect people with their food heritage. A concrete example: the Pacific Island Food Revolution, a reality television cooking show featuring local cuisine of the South Pacific was effective, entertaining and showed evidence of impact in consumption patterns of participants and viewers. ACTION POINT: It is proposed that the successful reality television show, “Pacific Island Food Revolution” be expanded to include Guam and Hawai‘i as well as other island groups. Supporting local farmers is of critical importance. Oftentimes they are unable to access grants or other forms of support as funding support is directed toward a scale that cannot be achieved on islands. Farm-to-school programs in Hawai‘i are good models to integrate farming and education for children and adolescents. ACTION POINT: Prioritize the opening of funding tracks to support indigenous and small farmers in island settings as well as farm-to-school initiatives. Research and data generation to sustain policies and programs that enhance cultural approaches to food systems require data systems, but these must belong to communities who should own and use data for their own informed decision-making. ACTION POINT: Create information systems to identify problems and promote solutions for food insecurity in island settings. Opportunities should be available for youth to derive substantive income from working in food systems. Young people are already driving initiatives on organic food, climate and the environment. Their engagement in food systems - production, cooking and sharing --- provides additional opportunities to converge solutions that are community specific and sustainable. ACTION POINT: Collaborate across island states and nations to adapt the “one-island economy” model in the Philippines to engage youth in farming that is profitable and appealing. Who the key actors are There are several key actions within the food system that need to be engaged, however, here are some of the priority actors that emerged from the dialogue session: Youth are key to a sustainable food system. They must be engaged in ways that are economically viable through education and job training. Women play a key role in food production but also in ensuring that food on the table is healthy. Chefs play an important role in promoting locally produced food and healthier dishes in popular and enjoyable ways. Teachers are key to education. Celebrities and artists play an important role in influencing consumption patterns. Lawyers are needed to revisit regulatory regimes that do not support small farmers. Others: Social entrepreneurs, academia, urban planners, farmers and producers, financial policy planners, climate advocates, health professionals236238239241243246248249251Youth are losing their cultural identity because of the food system (marketing of fast food, “traditional food is for older persons”, shift in nutritional preferences) so efforts are needed to reconnect youth to their culture through food - and provide economically rewarding/ viable income to incentivize youth to be involved in the food system. Changing the narrative around the idea that food is not a commodity; it defines social interaction, brings people together culture, cultivates our relationship to the land. We need to speak about food from different perspectives including: “The food system as a social determinant of health” “Farming is rewarding” “Food sovereignty and decolonization of food systems” “Food access as a human right” “Food as a public good” “The land is the chief, we are the servants” “Local food is a bridge between culture and food supply chain” “One island economies” - every island should strive to be food self-sufficient even if the main industry is tourism. Food systems need to be linked to tourism to benefit the tourism industry and the food production sector simultaneously. Indigenous groups have knowledge on food systems that can result in equity, food security, sustainability and environmental protection. Indigenous farmers need to have access to resources and opportunities to increase their cultural prominence. Traditions should be revived but can have a modern twist. Empowering communities to take the lead is the key to a social movement - change will not be sustained through academia, non-profit institutions, and government. Educate families and communities to improve food access in backyards, urban gardens, vertical gardens, coastal areas/food sources. Educating the public through popular media like reality cooking shows on television, soap operas and other forms of entertainment are proven to have impact and can bring about changes in behaviour and attitudes because they are enjoyable and restore pride in local cuisine. Communication campaigns including social campaigns, are needed to counteract the fast food marketing with promotion of fresh and locally produced food that is properly labelled. At the global level Indigenous and intergenerational knowledge about food will result in eating healthier, food security and environmental protection. Sustained advocacy for the preservation of indigenous knowledge around food is very important and should be done as a global effort of island communities. Investing in women results in investments in the community. Women play an important role in agriculture and aquaculture.They also make sure that healthy food is on the table. They share information about opportunities and resources that people can access to grow food, making them valuable educators within the community. It is important to mobilize resources to support initiatives for women empowerment and engagement in food systems.237239241245246248251Divergent views included: 1) labelling the actual cost of food (in relation to health effects, carbon foot print) to inform consumers of what they are buying 2) use of words to describe what is appealing and attractive to youth

2021-05-09 07:57:38205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/9908/39

606341824416238161417253260016711261197

The dialogue was organized to be representative of multi-stakeholder and multi-sectoral engagement on food fortification. Stakeholders included government both at national and sub-national (spanning the different ministries that have a mandate related to food fortification, such as MOP, MOH, MISTI, among others), private sector (using SUN Business Network as entry points), business association and chambers of commerce, donors, and development partners. The participants from the sub-national included representatives from T’boung Khmum, Siem Reap and Kampong Cham Provinces. The participants were informed of the principles of engagement at the start of the dialogue. Furthermore, the panelists were comprised of different stakeholders (government, UN, private sector) so that the role of each related to food fortification and the enabling environment would complement one another and lead to a rich and interesting discussion.Introduction by senior representatives of government encouraged trust and respect for all parties and emphasized the importance of listening to the whole diversity of views, participants were reminded that it is possible for us to disagree in the dialogues without be disagreeable. Facilitators were careful to ensure that different viewpoints did not dissolve into arguments back and forth and that the participants respected one another's rights to express their views without need for contradiction by other participants. The participation of provincial participants is an important element of inclusiveness and the use of a single laptop and camera enabled this group to participate. The whole process reflected adherence to these principles.It is important to start with the end in mind and clearly define the high-level objective and main output that is sought through the FSS in-depth dialogue. The dialogues present an opportunity to engage diverse stakeholders across sectors, at national and sub-national levels, and garner support for collective action on thematic areas related to food systems.

NoWe had adapted the method of the dialogues from face to face to virtual due to the COVID-19 restriction policy in Cambodia. For this dialogue, there were keynote speakers to set the scene, followed by a panel discussion involving experts from Ministry of Planning, Ministry of Industry, Science, Technology and Innovation, UNICEF and the private sector. After the panel discussion, the floor was open to questions and comments from participants.

234238246249The Enabling Environment for Food Fortification in-depth dialogue is the first of a two-part series of in-depth dialogues on food fortification. The second dialogue will take place on 25 May and focus on the operational environment. The Enabling Environment for Food Fortification in-depth dialogue aims to bring together key stakeholders, including technical ministries, the United Nations, civil society, private sector and business associations, financial institutions, and donors, at national and sub-national levels who are involved in setting or supporting food fortification standards, regulation, law, policy and strategies in Cambodia to share challenges & opportunities and identify strategic action to improve food fortification. The focus of the dialogue was on assessing the enabling environment for food fortification in Cambodia and identifying the key challenges and steps required for improvement. The dialogue was multi-sectoral and multi-stakeholder, attracting representatives of 8 ministries plus the Medical Board of Cambodia, 11 development partner agencies and private sector representatives including SMEs who will play an important role to fortified suitable micronutrient into their products such as rice, snack, or drink; promote nutrition messaging and integrate workforce nutrition in their company etc. It was widely agreed that food fortification is a very important strategy to combat micro-nutrient deficiencies. Food fortification through staple foods is economically efficient and efficacious in terms of delivering adequate micro-nutrients to target groups. Food Fortification is an identified joint priority for the 2nd National Strategy for Food Security and Nutrition 2019-2023. The existing enabling environment is characterized by the existence of regulatory structures and guidelines for food fortification, limited resources and capabilities, including for enforcement of standards for processing and marketing. There has been limited progress with fortification in Cambodia, and a deterioration in salt iodization. Demand for fortified products is limited, as consumer awareness of the benefits of fortification is generally low. The use of fortified products in school feeding is a standard and successful practice. The key challenges for fortification included cost and difficulties of importing ingredients and equipment and limited technical capacities. It was widely agreed that more research (e.g. effectiveness of micronutrient strategy implementation, micronutrient survey etc.) is required and that resources and capacity building are critically lacking in both the public and private sector. Consumer awareness and trust needed to be cultivated through SBCC and supported by enforcement of standards and regulations.235238246249Inadequate diet is a pertinent problem for Cambodia, with low quality and low diversity leading to micro-nutrient deficiencies. The situation is made worse by the COVID-19 situation. Food fortification of staple foods is a proven, cost-effective, timely mechanism for addressing malnutrition at the national level. The dialogue was a call for all stakeholders to provide inputs for incorporating food fortification in the Roadmap for Sustainable Food System for Cambodia for 2030. Whilst the use of food fortification to improve nutrition is a cross-sectoral and multi-stakeholder issue, and supported at the highest policy including the Rectangular Strategy Phase IV, the National Strategic Development Plan 2019-2023, the 2nd NSFSN 2019-2023 and in the Cambodia SDGs for ending hunger. The dialogue highlighted that food fortification has huge potential to address micronutrient deficiency within Cambodian population, contribute to healthy diets, and engage with private sector to support to nutrition priorities. The efforts for food fortification thus far have been conducted in piecemeal fashion and that as major output of the FSS we want to support the RGC to develop a unified roadmap for food fortification.236238246249Future Directions The steps recommended for developing a better enabling environment for food fortification included the further development of strategy for food fortification; research into key topics such as the micro-nutrient needs of vulnerable population (e.g. PLW, children under five, school age children and adolescent), experience from other countries, and the suitability of staple foods for fortification; the strengthening and enforcement of existing regulations; improved process/mechanism for importing necessary ingredients and equipment; the provision of necessary training and sharing experience of techniques or procedure of fortifying foods between the public and private sector; the development of SBCC strategy; improved labelling and accountability private sector and government. Technical assistance and financial support are needed from the development partners to help at the national level and to extend capacities to the sub-national level. At this stage, voluntary standards are important for industry, backed by testing, labelling and enforcement in the marketplace because the government has limited capabilities to impose mandatory standards.236238245246249Challenges One of the main challenges for the advancement of food fortification lies in the insufficient engagement of stakeholders to support fortification at both national and subnational level. In addition, enforcement is limited, and this leads to lack of faith on the part of the private sector. There are financial constraints for development of fortification, with limited investment and support. Despite the success of iodization efforts in the past, the dissolution of the Kep-Kampot Salt Producers’ Association and resulting pursuit of individual interests has led to a collapse of iodization efforts. The raw materials and equipment required for fortification are expensive and must be imported from other countries. Testing of product in the market reveals that 60% of refined salt does not meet the iodine levels required under the national guidelines. The general level of awareness about food fortification is low. People tend to buy what is cheapest and do not appreciate the benefits of fortified products. Because the capabilities of government to test and enforce standards for fortification are limited, it is not possible for government to send notification of infringements to the WTO to prevent inferior imported products from being sold in Cambodia. MISTI can help to develop standards but they have no power to police those standards in the marketplace. The Ministry of Commerce is responsible for the goods on sale. Consumers should be educated to use their influence in the marketplace. Inter-Ministerial cooperation is lacking and the incentives for industry are also lacking. Firms cannot capture a return on fortified products if cheaper non-fortified products are also allowed into the market and consumer awareness of fortification benefits is low. Industry cooperation is low because of these challenges. There is a need for more research and evidence related to effectiveness of micronutrient strategy implementation, micronutrients survey to be generated to identify bottlenecks, suitable micronutrient to be fortified and for re-strategizing.236238240245246249Suggestion and Recommendation Food fortification falls under the mandate of several ministries and improved inter-ministerial coordination is needed. Stricker enforcement of the laws and regulations is required. Incentives for the private sector (subsidies, letter of recognition, business and technical assistance, tax breaks, free of charge business registration). Improved cooperation between the private sector and the public sector Nutrition labelling is used in other countries and consumers use these facts to make purchasing decisions. Cambodia needs to make progress with consumer education and awareness and improvements in labelling. Advocacy is critical to gather more political support for food fortification. If food fortification is profitable it will be driven by the private sector. Where there is no profit, it will fail. Producers respond to market demand.237238249250Local producers always want the government to block the import of foreign products. At the same time, farmers are always urging the government to pave the way for the export of agricultural products. However, in the free-market economy and globalization, the government cannot ban the imports. Consumers wonder why imported goods are cheaper than local products.

2021-05-24 04:27:58https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/3Speech-Open-Zoom-6421-MoP_ET.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Speech_on-Food-Fortification-6-April-2021_ET.pdf

2021-05-10 09:48:44204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/12315/203

2751012131417111712114111612951

The organizing team has selected a group of young and motivated individuals already (or ready to be) projected into the realm of food systems and provided them with a safe space to discuss, openly and creatively, the way forward for a more sustainable and resilient future. As such, both the organizing team and the participants understand the need to act with urgency and are committed, either personally or professionally, to contribute to the vision, objectives and outcomes of the Food Systems Summit. The Bites of Transfoodmation (BoT) participants aim to be agents of change and wish to contribute to the outcome of the FSS. David Nabarro’s intervention during the first BoT virtual meeting clearly inspired them and helped them better to understand the process behind the Summit. In the organization of the Dialogue, the BoT organizing team made sure to embrace multi stake-holder inclusivity by inviting participants from different countries, backgrounds and sectors, including, but not limited to civil society, government, academia and private sector. It must be pointed out, however, that the Dialogue has been organized and carried out with a focus on the youth and on the Middle Eastern - Mediterranean region geographically speaking. The facilitators selected were all part of the organizing team and had been briefed with attention to ensure the creation of a safe space conducive for dialogues based on respect and trust. A number of 'principles' for discussion were shared with the participants at the beginning of each session to foster this sense of inclusivity, mutual respect and trust. These included the need to complement the work of others, build on what the person before has said, challenge only when you have an alternative to propose, and finally seek compromise.The Dialogue re-grouped and focused on all the topics that were addressed during the previous five workshops, with a major focus on narratives and advocacy; knowledge, connectivity and digitalization; habitats and proximity; diversity of food systems; renewed traditions and empowered culture; affordability and true value of food. The Dialogue is part of a broader set of workshops and events organized by the Bites of Transfoodmation team that aim to take into account and discuss different aspects of the food systems, thus recognizing their complexity. Previous dialogues and workshops have focused on the topics of sustainable consumption and on the future of production, transformation and distribution. Some time has been dedicated to the unifying power of potentially divisive concepts. The final aim is to achieve a political intention of the group, in the form of a Manifesto and Lines of Action, which will take a holistic and systemic approach to food systems transformation. Yet, as the very name Bites of Transfoodmation suggests, the idea is to propose some ‘bites’ of change which are coherent to and respect the vision of the group of young change-makers and the themes identified by the group as key. The principles of inclusivity, respect and trust were reflected in the design and roll-out of the Dialogue and have been an essential feature of the entire Bites of Transfoodmation process. The participants have not only been included in all stages of the project in a transparent and inclusive way but have been its very center. A real sense of trust has been created along the way, and this could be witnessed during the Dialogue as the participants felt they could express their views freely and openly, even when these did not necessarily reflect the views held by others.Thanks to the fact that there is a team working exclusively on the Bites of Transfoodmation project, a lot of information and knowledge sharing is able to take place both among the participants, and between the participants and the organizing team – all this based on a high degree of mutual trust. The organizing team has ensured that various different avenues and spaces for exchange are created, both during and in the build-up to the Dialogues. This has definitely contributed to building trust as well as to keeping the momentum, engagement and commitment of the participants high. Our advice to other Convenors would be to make sure, if possible, that there is a strong point of contact between the Dialogue participants and the Convenors, as well as a high level of trust. This allows for participant's feedback and continued interaction after the workshops and Dialogue so that the ideas can be further refined, and knowledge further shared. Furthermore, it seems to be a valuable approach to choose participants with a diverse background in order to permit exchange about different realities, while working towards compromise and unifying elements.

NoThe Bites of Transfoodmation “Dispute”, a typical Swiss format of confronting ideas, was the first time the group presented the Manifesto to a broad, non specialist audience. Comparted to the earlier so-called “Dispute Talks”, organized in collaboration with Istituto Svizzero, the current event was much denser and aimed at an active discussion/interaction between the panelists. Panel 1: During the first panel about imagining a new society through the perspective of food, the panelists talked about habitats, proximity and new traditions. All agreed that the production chains must become more transparent so that rural and urban areas can experience proximity and can exchange knowledge more easily. Panel 2: During the second panel on digitalization, connectivity and diversity of food systems, all four panelists agreed along the entire panel: Indeed, the participants emphasized that access to education and information is a necessary tool to reform the system and that digitalization is the vehicle for change. Panel 3: During the third panel about the real value of food, its accessibility and diversification in food systems, the BoT panelists met with experts ready to challenge the Manifesto. In fact, the discussion was very active, especially about the implementation of a transformation in the food systems, while the idea of change, as well as the objectives that the BoT group wants to achieve in the Manifesto (true value, diversity, collaboration, affordability, accessibility), were shared by all. Final debate: During the final debate, the four representatives - Ute Klamert (WFP Assistant Executive Director for Partnerships & Governance), Gilbert Houngbo (President of IFAD), Christian Frutiger (Assistant Director General and Head of Global Cooperation at the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation), Giorgio Marrapodi (Director General for Development Cooperation at the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs) - participated as representatives of the institutions, but expressed mainly their personal views. They stressed the importance of reforming the food system and the decisive role played by youth and social networks. Assessment: The Bites of Transfoodmation Dispute was a success in terms of the number of people who participated and the interaction between panelists; in fact, participants were able to present ideas and react to each other's opinions, preventing long and off-topic interventions. In addition, the panelists from international organizations were able to filter out institutional opinions and participated in the debate as individuals with personal opinions. In the end, the discussion and more specifically the Manifesto proved to be very relevant to the institutional discussions within the Food Systems Summit.

234238239241243244246248250The main points touched in the Bites of Transfoodmation Dispute were the six paragraphs of the Bites of Transfoodmation Manifesto about renewed traditions, new habits and empowered culture; habitats and urban-rural proximity; digitalization, connectivity, diversification of food systems; narratives and advocacy; true cost and true value of food, accessibility and affordability of food; as well as diversity of food systems.235238239241243244246247248250251The main findings of the first panel were that there is a profound disconnection between producers and consumers, especially in cities, due to an invisible wall dividing the urban from the rural area and making it impossible to have true awareness of the origins and related production systems of food. Moreover, the panel highlighted the importance of supporting hybrid and cross-sectoral professions, as well as investing in education as a very first starting point, to break this wall and ensure social proximity. The main findings of the second panel were the recognition of digital technologies as the vehicle of change brought by the people, as well as the importance of filtering good information from bad one, the same way as we select good quality food from bad quality one. Furthermore, the panel found that social media represents an important tool, especially for younger generations to advocate for better and more inclusive and sustainable narratives. In the third panel, the main findings were that everyone has (theoretically) the right to food and that there is a strong need to make the food system more inclusive for women, the youth, minorities, the poor, indigenous people, refugees, etc. In addition to this, it was recognized during the whole panel that a true cost approach is needed to change the system and make it more sustainable, by internalizing positive and negative externalities in the prices of food, in terms of environmental, social, economic, health and animal welfare implications. In this perspective, the character of food as a potential public good was discussed. Some interesting points were raised by the panelists of the final Debate. Indeed, not only food was recognized as a Human Right in terms of accessibility and affordability, but also the work behind the production of food and the related waste and loss was highlighted. Moreover, the important role of the youth and future generations in enhancing the needed change to reach sustainable food systems was stressed again, especially in relation to spreading the mantra on social media. For this reason, the panelists underlined the importance of including younger generations in decision-making processes. Other main findings of the panel were related to a fair distribution of resources, revenues and end products through sustainable production and social inclusiveness, as well as the recognition of health-related problems in our food system, in terms of undernutrition, malnutrition, over-nutrition and obesity.236238239240244246250The first panel dealing with the redefinition of new societies through the lens of food, as well as the reconnection with food traditions and rural and urban areas, was moderated by Cassiano Luminati and hosted the two young changemakers Fortesa Softa and Amin Emadi, and the two challengers Sara Roversi and Christian Frutiger. The main point of the BoT representatives was that the reconnection between rural and urban areas is a fundamental aspect in order to give food its real value. They stressed the importance to reconnect with food traditions, retouch cultural values, invest on social capital, connect the food we eat with its environment, conceptualize new ways of planning territories and use the urban areas as connectors to build a more dense and interconnected system. Moreover, the BoT representatives cited the Manifesto and referred to the work of the group which emphasized the need for a new bottom-up approach to build renewed societies where reciprocity among humans and their natural environment will be the starting point. Indeed, transparency and trust in the food chain should be improved and supported by normative work in a more coherent way. They also highlighted the importance of using the principle of subsidiarity to solve problems in the closest possible way. Finally, they underlined the great importance of education. The reactions of the two external speakers were interesting, as they underlined and shared the important message of the Bites of Transfoodmation community. Indeed, they felt inspired and considered that rethinking our societies through a food perspective is a key aspect. Sara Roversi stated that food should not be seen as a commodity, food it is much more than that, it is care and sharing. They all mentioned that we have lost the real value of food and that education can lay a considerable role in recovering from this situation. It has been also said that a food system is like a living organism where everything is interconnected and it works well only if everything else is in harmony. Christian Frutiger has also underlined the importance of the reciprocity concept between people and their habitats. To conclude, the first panel was a very constructive discussion among speakers from different generations, backgrounds and experiences, showing that a unified vision is possible to achieve. Indeed, the only points that were stressed a bit more from the challengers than from the BoT representatives was the fact that it is important not to see a real wall between the rural and urban areas, actually we are closer than we believe, and that we have to understand that we can't treat food-related issues the same way like climate change because of their higher complexity.236238239243244248The second panel dealing with digitalization, connectivity, and diversification in food systems, as well as narratives and advocacy, was moderated by Marina Helm and hosted the two young changemakers Eugenia Alfine and Giacomo Molteni, and the two challengers Mirja Michalscheck and Francesco Holecz. The main points of the BoT representatives was that digitalization is an important vehicle for change: they suggested that by increasing access to connectivity and technology, inequalities can be reduced and people can be made more aware of what they are actually consuming. Indeed, information and knowledge should be better accessible, especially for young people. Moreover, the two changemakers highlighted the important responsibility everyone has to share positive, diverse and inclusive narratives, because it is thanks to the sharing and repetition of narratives, that the mantra eventually influences reality. In addition, these narratives should focus on what we gain through a change, instead of what we lose (share over shout), and they should lead to advocacy. Through social media, people are able to share the well-articulated narratives and advocate for concrete aligned actions. However, to do so and to be successful, the incentives on social media should change so that the true values, diversity and inclusion are part of our everyday feed. The reactions of the two external speakers were amazing, as they underlined the important message of the Bites of Transfoodmation community. Indeed, they felt inspired and considered that equal access to digitalization, technology and connectivity is a crucial goal to ensure sustainable future food systems. However, despite equal access, they highlighted the importance of filtering good information from bad information (the way we distinguish good quality food from bad quality food). Mirja Michalscheck and Francesco Holecz also confirmed that technology is only a vehicle of change, since people are the ones ensuring change; data and artificial intelligence just facilitate the process. Finally, they concluded their interventions by suggesting that there is a need for a legal framework regarding technology, so that the whole society can operate through these rules: the idea behind it is to make sure that responsabilities do not only lay on the consumer’s side, but also on the authorities’. To conclude, the second panel was a very nice discussion among speakers from different generations, backgrounds and experiences, showing that a unified vision is possible to achieve. Indeed, the only point that was stressed a bit more from the challengers than from the BoT representatives was the fact that it is important to always base every decision and choice on reliable data, in the sense that data alone are not enough to enhance change.236238239241244246247The third panel about the true value and affordability of food, as well as the diversity of food systems, was moderated by Marylaure Crettaz and welcomed the two BoT representatives Sofia Cereghetti and Iyad Alqaisi as well as two external challengers Jonathan Normand and Maximo Torero. The main requests of the young changemakers were that diversity should be considered as a unifying factor along the entire chain of future food systems, in the sense that a dense network of deeply connected small and different realities leads to more resilience and better collaboration. Secondly, the group requested that the true value of food should always be included through the internalization of positive and negative externalities in terms of environmental, social, and economic consequences, health, and animal welfare. Thirdly, Sofia and Iyad demanded that food should be affordable for all and personalized nutrition should be part of the solution, so that everyone has access to healthy and nutritious food (right to food), by respecting cultural needs and traditions. Moreover, the young changemakers highlighted the importance of connecting modern practices with the original roots, as a way to embrace small-holder realities and change the system. The reactions of the two external speakers were firstly coherent with the requests of the BoT community, indeed the true cost approach was presented as a solution to the current problems of food systems from their perspective as well, the idea being the integration of local ecosystems in the true cost approach. However, afterwards, the discussion got livelier and the challengers started questioning the changemakers’ ideas. Indeed, they considered that the current food market does neither permit a true cost approach from the consumer’s side, as the willingness to pay is linked to uncertainty about the processes of the whole food chain, nor from the producer’s side, since the externalities cannot be taken into account due to the risk of creating financial damages. Moreover, the challengers considered that, even though conceptually there is the right to food for everyone, there is a difficulty of applying the characteristics of a public good to food. Finally, even though the approach differed from the one proposed by the young changemakers, the experts agreed on the importance of changing the whole system to make it more sustainable and inclusive. In conclusion, one can say that the BoT representatives and the experts really had a lively discussion that challenged both sides. This dispute about true value and affordability of food and diversity of food systems often encountered some points of divergence, such as the difficulty of scaling-up small-holder realities to supply the 55% of people living in urban areas, the contradiction of food being a Human Right in theoretical and practical terms, and the divergence in choosing the appropriate approach to tackle current food systems.236238239241244246247251The final debate was moderated Alessa Perotti (BoT), and hosted the four high-level speakers Ute Klamert (WFP), Gilbert Houngbo (IFAD), Christian Frutiger (SDC), Giorgio Marrapodi (Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs). Ute Klamert stressed the importance of addressing accessibility and affordability when it comes to people and their relation to food (food as a Human Right), and of reducing the environmental stress our planet is facing. Ute Klamert also appreciated the terms “new traditions” and “new habits” presented in the Manifesto and suggested that youth, the future generations, have the power to really change the world: for example, she mentioned that by changing their diets to vegetarian, in the last decade the youth was able to influence the food market dynamics. Moreover, she considered that young people, who are very intuitive with social media, could strengthen the advocacy part to change the food system, similarly, to what climate change activists have done with “Fridays for Future”. Gilbert Houngbo introduced the main challenges we are facing these days through the major social and natural failures of our market. He continued by stressing the importance of not only looking at food systems from the production side – the sustainability perspective – but also from the consumption side – the social and inclusiveness perspective. Basically, he requested a fair distribution of resources, revenues and end products of food systems. Regarding the role of the youth, Gilbert Houngbo considered that young people should not only be part of decision-making processes, but should even be at the center of change: youths in low-income countries should engage at the beginning of the production chain to determine working conditions, they should be end-consumers to help determine demand for food, they should start the transformation by minimizing loss and waste, and they should engage in partnerships allowing them to play in the field with big corporations. Giorgio Marrapodi recognized that food systems are not only the main topic of the year with the upcoming Food Systems Summit, but actually the issue of the decade. He stressed the importance of acknowledging a transformative process for the people and the environment allowing to recognize the work behind food without wasting and losing it. When it came to the youths, Giorgio Marrapodi highlighted the centrality of young people in the transformative process. At the same time, he stressed the importance of not giving away the responsibility of the older generations to change the system. Except for the food waste/loss issue, Christian Frutiger highlighted the main failure of current food systems, which is the health-issue: today, there are millions and millions of people facing either undernutrition, malnutrition, overnutrition, or obesity. His vision is that no one is left behind in a truly functioning market internalizing social and environmental consequences of our current behavior through a re-thinking of taxes and subsidies. Concerning the youth, Christian Frutiger highlighted the importance of “getting the science right” in order to have true definitions. He felt like the Food Systems Summit will be the beginning (and not the end) of a journey of change of food systems, even though he wished something like an IPCC of food systems as the outcome of the Summit. For this, Frutiger stressed the importance of involving all sectors from academia, the public sector, the private sector, the multilateral system (IOs, IFIs), governments, civil society, etc.237239241243244246247During the Bites of Transfoodmation Dispute also some points of divergence arose. For example, not everyone was convinced that the invisible wall dividing the urban and rural areas is actually real since, de facto, the city cannot live without its surrounding. Also, it was highlighted that tackling food-relates issues cannot be done the same way as addressing climate change, as many would like to do, because food systems are more complex than what we might think (ex. How often we think we consume something sustainable and when deepening more into it we discover it is not sustainable at all?). Another important point that was missing in the Manifesto was the fact that the group of young changemakers stressed the importance of data in improving accessibility of knowledge, but forgot to include an important selection criterion: Indeed, in order to avoid misinformation, disinformation or manipulated information, data needs to be reliable. Finally, in the third panel the contradiction of food being a Human Right in theoretical ad practical terms became evident, since the experts felt that food cannot be a public good due to its non-rival and non-excludable nature. Indeed, during the discussion, Maximo Torero underlined many times that, even though food should be a public good (since everyone has the right to food), it is impossible to understand it as such on a practical level because we are unable to provide it to everyone because of the resources’ quantity limits.

2021-05-10 15:32:14205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/9778/135

135845121633128851328847

The participants cut across the various facets of the food system. The urgency of actions to make the food systems work for everyone and the environment was stressed during the preparations for the inception dialogue, and in all speeches, good will messages, and presentations. None of the action tracks was given more importance than another.The Dialogue recognized complexities of the food system in the South-South region of Nigeria to the fore with a call for a holistic course of action that will ensure that region’s food systems deliver high quality food and affordable nutrition in an inclusive, efficient, resilient, and sustainable, mannerOrganizing a Summit of this nature in a country like Nigeria comes with several challenges especially in the era of a Pandemic. In order to mitigate this problem and have an all-inclusive dialogue, - ICT infrastructure limitations need to be addressed adequately and every potential participants adequately informed early on the facility and medium to be adopted for the engagement.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The main focus of this exploratory dialogue was to look at the South-South region’s Food Systems in tandem with the five action tracks and levers of the UN Food Systems Summit. Participants conducted a thorough diagnosis of the food systems, the functioning, major stakeholders, potentials, vulnerabilities, as well as opportunities for its transformation so that it can deliver high quality diet and affordable nutrition; be inclusive, efficient, resilient, and sustainable; and work for everyone within the region. It was clear from discussions that excessive focus on agriculture and food security resulted in an unintended consequence of creating a less diverse food environment that is unable to provide an adequate variety and affordable, safe, and nutrient dense food. Food systems in Nigeria are vulnerable to shocks, stresses, and disruptions. Our food systems are threatened by climate change and stresses due to the impact of drought, flooding, erosion, inflation, the COVID-19 pandemic, and conflict. Poverty, unemployment, and insufficient food reserves limit the capacity of our food systems to cope with shocks and stresses. The COVID pandemic has amplified the fragility, inequities and suboptimal functionality of our current food systems thus requiring significant transformations in polices, practices and business models that would make our food systems fit for purpose and enable the delivery of the most important functions rooted in robust evidence base, country context and emerging global trends and realities. There are significant food safety challenges across the food systems domain. Most investments in food safety have been for food exports. Because of unsafe food, 1 in 11 Nigerians fall ill yearly, 21 million cases of foodborne diseases are documented and the annual loss of human capital due to foodborne diseases is estimated at about $16 billion. Most times, the vulnerable group are the most affected by the challenge of food safety and also the most nutritious foods have the most complicated challenge around food safety. It is therefore important to note that as Nigeria allows unsafe foods are allowed to pass through the borders to the people, the sovereignty of the nation is surrendered to others. There are huge post-harvest losses within the food systems; we lose more than half of what we produce, and this comes with significant impact on the environment. Inequality and power imbalances at the household, community, national and global levels are consistently constraining the ability of our food systems to ensure poverty reduction and sustainable, equitable livelihoods. Despite many years of investment in policies, programmes, institutions, and the broader enabling environment, we see glaring indications of a broken food system.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251• Privatization of Government investments in the Agricultural sector for Management and sustainability • Need for review of Agric policy and framework for a sustainable food system as policies are obsolete • Need for integration and coordination into the Policy • Integration of women in the agricultural sector • Empowerment with interest free loans and inputs to farmers • Timely distribution of inputs to farmers in terms of crop and animal farming • Engagement with traditional rulers and Local Government Chairpersons to provide lands to women • Leasing of demonstration farms to women to encourage more women to farm • Need for the South-South zone to diversify to onions farming and goat herding. • Research on land productivity should be carried out • Research and education on Agric Extension should be encouraged • Research results and findings should be made public and Government should be engaged for effective dissemination • Bio fortification of foods and nutrition research should be encouraged by Government • Nutrition education and awareness should be strengthened at Antenatal levels • Need for integrated farming (crops, fishery, animal, livestock farming) for profiting at irrigation outlets • Agro logistics is key • Proper farmers’ data/records to be maintained by relevant bodies • Need for central farmers’ data that is accessible to all Agric sector stakeholders • Value chain and development financing by Central Bank of Nigeria should be encouraged • All stakeholders should be carried along from programme conceptualization, inception and research instead of imposing research findings • Road map development for the sector • Business plan development training • Idea sharing by Chief Executives in the sector is key • Need to capture information on all informal/private sector players in the Agric sector236238243244245246247248249250251Discussion Topic Access to Safe and Nutritious Food What actions in next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion Topic? • Contextualize the concepts of Access, Safe and Nutritious Food in the specific milieu and needs of communities and households. These will aid policy/decision making. • Equitable access to factors of production especially for women in both urban and rural communities will enable and enhance the availability and affordability of nutritious food. • Innovative knowledge in the production and processing of food will improve household nutrition • Development value chains will improve access and food safety • Advocacy and sensitization on the need to have nutritious food using local and readily available ingredients • Promotion of community and school feeding programme Strand 1: Reducing hunger and inequality The conclusions are;  More families and households are becoming increasingly hungry with widening inequality. The reasons include; i.) Shift in family system, means and mode of production ii.) Constraining land tenure system iii.) Collapse of extension services • Education of households on income and livelihoods • Equity in access to land and means of production • Support private sector extension services • Use of data and empirical evidence Strand 2: Increasing availability and affordability of nutritious food Involves the following;  Value addition  Improvement of household incomes and alternatives  Fortification of food  Encourage all year production  Improvement on infrastructure  Adoption and adaptation of technology and science Strand 3: Ensuring Safe food Food safety will entail;  Availability of Water Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) services  Attainment of Open defecation free status  Accreditation and certification of farms and value chain operators for competitiveness  Regulations/Guidelines  Legislations What contributions will our organizations make? • Dam and irrigation services available to farmers for sustained food production • Agro-logistic support • Finance and risk mitigation • Technology and technical assistance • Knowledge Management • Reporting systems • Monitoring and Evaluation systems • Data and Information Management platform • Coordination, facilitation • Capacity building for stakeholders • Advocacy and sensitization How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? 1. Supervision, Monitoring, tracking and evaluation 2. Comprehensive regional roadmap and implementation strategies peculiar to the states. 3. Outputs, Outcomes, Results and Impact236239243244245246247248249250251Discussion Topic Shift to healthy and sustainable consumption pattern What actions in next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion Topic? • Regulation of advertisement and marketing of unhealthy food (sugary beverages, ultra-processed food) through increasing tax/tariffs. • Nutrition education highlighting the dangers of unhealthy diet targeted at communities and schools, empowering community members and school children to demand for healthy food. • Mainstreaming of nutrition into all agricultural programme and education system. • Provision of enabling environments for civil society organizations involved in community mobilization and sensitization on healthy nutrition, to access free or subsidized airtime for nutrition education. • School feeding programmes should be implemented more effectively and monitored to ensure meals are provided with adequate quality and in the right quantities. • Encouraging local farmers to prepare and package locally made complementary food to strengthen complementary feeding for children under the age of five. • Provision of good storage facility to address waste recorded by small scale farmers who are cannot afford proper facilities to preserve their produce. • Encouraging appropriate technology for food preservation at household, retail and service levels to minimize wastage. • Building relevant infrastructures to aid food logistics management e’g. good road network to shorten supply distance and duration to avoid spoilage and wastage. • Establishing food collection centers within LGAs to enable fast and easy access will minimize need for storage and reduce wastage. • Building infrastructure for food processing and developing sustainable systems for food recycling and conversion of waste for productive use. • Institution of proactive measures to increase consumption of nutritionally adequate food e.g. increase farmers’ (especially women) access to land for farming and animal rearing to improve animal-sourced intakes for children. • Food safety policy should be developed to ensure producers/ food processors are properly guided on food standard and also to protect the consumers from unhealthy food • Robust public-private partnerships that support quality input and effective distribution of farm produce under the regulation and oversight of relevant government organs. • Multi-stakeholder engagement for an all-inclusive policy formulation • Investing in, and scaling up evidence-based and proven interventions for reducing malnutrition (under and overnutrition) among children under five, e.g. management of severe acute malnutrition at community level, conditional cash transfer for healthy food consumption etc. How can donor agancies and private sector organisations help? • Robust and mutually beneficial partnerships between private sector organizations and local small scale farmers with a focus on healthy food consumption should be developed with government’s oversight and regulation. • Local and international NGOs can support the design and implementation evidenced-based interventions targeting the most vulnerable, especially children and women, to improve nutrition. • Support innovative ideas and proof of concepts that will result in the shift from unhealthy to healthy and sustainable consumption.236240243244245246247248249250251Discussion Topic Boost nature-positive food production at scale What actions in next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion Topic? 1) Increase budgetary allocation: A policy stipulating the minimum budgetary allocation to agriculture. 2) Policy harmonization within the land use sectors to maximize use of available land 3) Encourage Climate-Smart Agricultural (CSA) practices, e.g.:  encourage crop rotation, intercropping and homestead gardening; as well as Agroforestry system, which has multiple uses, including protecting the soil;  integrated farming to incorporate animal husbandry/livestock farming; this is the success behind the Songhai farms;  Use of improved varieties of input, e.g., stress- tolerant, high-yielding varieties, etc.  Discourage the use of chemical fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides and encourage organic farming  Using the ash obtained from palm tree wastes to enrich nutrient depleted soils;  Use of cover crops like legumes to control weed.  Introduction of local/traditional irrigation system 4) Introduction of out-grower’s scheme, for youth participation in Agriculture 5) Availability if data was conceived to be key for evidenced-based policies and programmes 6) Bio-security to maintain hygiene and health in livestock production What contributions will our organizations make? Many of the organizations participating in the discussion have one or two things to contribute. 1) Veterinary section: prevention and control of Zoonosis; 2) Boarder Commission: Advocacy and advice against conflict, crisis and wars before onset of farming 3) Department of Forestry: Building capacity of local communities to engage in agroforestry in nature-based production, raising seedlings and maintaining plantations; forming forest management committees 4) Economic Planning: Development of medium-term plan for agriculture. 5) Private sector: eliminate affluent/waste to environment by use of filters; treatment of waste water; backward integration for economic sustainability; incorporation of cassava flour into wheat flour; encourage local grain plantations and harvest; Ensure that animal feeds are produced under controlled hygienic condition; 6) Ministry of International Cooperation; Source for fund for sustainable agricultural practices; 7) ureau of Statistics: Conduct meta-evaluation and evidence-based monitoring and evaluation. 8) Ministry of Climate Change & Forestry: deforestation initiatives, especially tree planting: helping soil fertility; reducing heat & desertification; advocate against harmful practices such as bush burning and poaching. How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful?  Through periodic monitoring and evaluation. The following indicators will show success  Improved yield, access to credits/inputs  Improved nutritional status and health  Inclusive participation and community ownership of programmes  Economic enhancement  Reclamation of degraded land  Reduced carbon dioxide emission236241243244245246247248249250251Discussion Topic Advancing Equitable Livelihoods What actions in next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion topic? Considering the peculiarities of the three focused States (Cross River, Akwa Ibom and Rivers), suggestions to uplift the livelihoods of farmers and other value chain actors in the region were discussed. Actions proposed to have impact in the next three years include: 1. Tackling Insecurities: The group proposed regional security, particularly amongst the focused states who share almost similar security challenges and implored stakeholders (Government, Private sector, local/community leadership, etc.) to collaborate in tackling insecurity in the regions. 2. Setting up Off-taking infrastructures: To address the problem of bonded contracting faced by local farmers, government in collaboration with private investors would set up accessible central centers to off-take produce directly from farmers at best market prices and to end post-harvest losses experienced by farmers so as to improve their income level. 3. Pricing Policy: Team members called on stakeholders to initiate policies that would stabilize macro-economic variables like taxation, inflation, exchange rates. -They identified the need to cap a Guaranteed Minimum Pricing policy as a requisite to tackling the problems of bonded contracts on small holder farmers. 4. Enhancing Social Capital Formation: it was noted that most farmers and value chain players lack stable financial support perhaps due to low knowledge of finance so they need financial leverages including zero interest facility and targeted agricultural loans (with low interest rates). -Capacity building on financial management was also identified for enhancing social capital. 5. Youth Involvement in Agriculture: the introduction of Smart-Agric as part of entrepreneurship course in curriculums or as skill development initiative would entice young people to engage in agriculture. 6. Climate Action: optimization of the meteorological agency by establishing sub-national hubs where timely weather condition and forecast would be disseminated in local languages to farmers to support their planning was identified as well as training of value chain actors on climate change adaptation and mitigation. How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? The following indicators were highlighted:  Improved income level  Increase in yield  Reduction of farmers per area What contributions will our organisations make?  Representative of Educational and financial institutions sought for collaborations to train farmers236242243244245246247248249250251Discussion Topic Building the Resilience of Food Systems in Nigeria to withstand Vulnerabilities, Shocks and Stresses What actions in next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion Topic? * Long-term solution is to raise agricultural productivity * Review the land use act to allow both gender equal access to agricultural lands. * The vast mangrove swamps of the Niger Delta should be sustainably managed for agricultural and artisanal production. * Cluster farming should be encouraged to allow for agricultural mechanization * The Forest Reserves in the South-South Region such as the Cross River National Park should be managed in such a way that host communities are not denied access to agricultural lands. * Enrolment in farmer cooperatives in the region is unacceptably low. Farmers should be encouraged to join cooperative societies to enable them benefit from CBN and World Bank assisted projects such as Anchor Borrowers’ Programme, APPEALS Project and NIRSAL. The politicization of these schemes should be discouraged. * Developing mechanisms for establishing weather index insurance schemes for farmers. Current programmes to improve the density of operational weather stations in the zone, thereby improving weather forecasting to farmers. * Provision of irrigation facilities for dry season farming * The agricultural extension services departments in the various state ADPs should be revived and enhanced to facilitate dissemination of improved agricultural practices. Value chain heads should be trained and re-trained to enlighten farmers on best agricultural practices * States in the region should establish agricultural produce processing hubs for value addition and curbing of post-harvest wastage. * Social safety net policies to reduce vulnerability especially for children and women should be encouraged. * Reintroduction of commodity boards and agricultural buy-back policy. * Taming the insecurity problems in the region: militancy, kidnapping and communal conflicts * Improved access to finance for small-holder farmers, especially women, to enhance productivity * Create a robust marketing network that directly and seamlessly link farmers to the market and private sector. * Social Consumer protection: Social insurance/support for producers to de-risk production.237238240241242243244245246247248249250251GROUP 1 The Food Systems in the South-South region is inherent with divergences in; a.) Production, processing, storage, packaging and distribution approaches • There is need to develop standards to enable competiveness • Improve shelf life of foods • Provide data and empirical information on the value chain b.) Consumption patterns • Data and scientific explanation c.) Ecological integrity • Embark on ecological restoration, build resilience, frameworks and mechanisms for climate change mitigation • Balance conservation with livelihood d.) Cultural and traditional orientations • Taboos • Mythologies and belief systems • Gender inequality GROUP 3 There were disagreements on whether to include some cross-cutting issues that were not directly related to CSA; however, after extensive discussions, it was agreed that the issues were directly or indirectly related to the topic under discussion GROUP 4  Farmers loans: it was argued whether or not commercial banks in Nigeria have packages (like loans) for famers. A banker informed that banks have such facility while other group members (largely value chain actors) emphasized that agricultural loans should have lower interest rates and different moratorium considering that farmers engage in different crop production and yield period varies. GROUP 5 * The south-south region has comparative advantage in the production of fish, crayfish, prawns, etc. * Contrary to FAO claims, women are equally involved in crop farming as well as processing, marketing and distribution of agricultural produce

2021-05-10 16:47:27205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/9783/135

4621529451

The dialogue was organized such that participants were drawn from four (4) states of the Northwest geopolitical zone. The states comprise of Kano (Host state), Katsina, Kaduna and Jigawa states. Kano state had 23, Katsina had 6, Kaduna had 14 and Jigawa had 10 participants. The curator highlighted the importance of a robust food system in the region that would address the peculiar challenges of the region food systems and mentioned the need for action to be taken. Also objectives of the food systems dialogue was highlighted as well as the significance of having the Exploratory dialogue to address the problems of food system in the region. The discussion centred on the 5 action tracks which was led by the facilitators. Good will message where given by the PS from each of the four states that participated.The PS (planning) from participating states where asked to nominate at least 2 participants from their respective states to represent membership on each respective action tracks discussed. Then the discussion on the food systems per action track went on. This facilitated the ability to share ideas/experiences from different states/background on a common issue.Need to plan for dialogues based on the challenges of the new normal with regards to the COVID-19 pandemic – consideration of the mode of participation (virtual or physical or both). Infrastructural limitations with internet access and quality will be a limiting factor to participation of people in areas with limited infrastructure.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The major focus of the exploratory dialogue was a comprehensive exploration of the Northwest zone of Nigeria Food Systems along the five action tracks on the UN food systems summit. Participants conducted a thorough diagnosis of the food systems, the functioning, major stakeholders, potentials, vulnerabilities, as well as opportunities for its transformation so that it can deliver high quality diet and affordable nutrition; be inclusive, efficient, resilient, and sustainable; and work for everyone. It was clear from discussions that excessive focus on agriculture and food security resulted in an unintended consequence of creating a less diverse food environment that is unable to provide an adequate variety and affordable, safe, and nutrient dense food. Food systems in Northwest Nigeria states are vulnerable to shocks, stresses, and disruptions. Our food systems are threatened by environmental effects and stresses due to the impact of drought, flooding, erosion, inflation, the COVID-19 pandemic, and conflict. Poverty, unemployment, and insufficient food reserves limit the capacity of our food systems to cope with shocks and stresses. The COVID pandemic has amplified the fragility, inequities and suboptimal functionality of our current food systems thus requiring significant transformations in polices, practices and business models that would make our food systems fit for purpose and enable the delivery of the most important functions rooted in robust evidence base, country context and emerging global trends and realities. There are significant food safety challenges across the food systems domain.Most investments in food safety have been for food exports. There are huge post-harvest losses within the food systems in the region and tremendous loses are recorded. Power imbalances at the household, community, national and global levels are consistently constraining the ability of our food systems to ensure poverty reduction and sustainable, equitable livelihoods. Despite many years of investment in policies, programmes, institutions, and the broader enabling environment, we see glaring indications of a broken food system.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The major focus of the exploratory dialogue was a comprehensive exploration of the Northwest zone of Nigeria Food Systems along the five action tracks on the UN food systems summit. Participants conducted a thorough diagnosis of the food systems, the functioning, major stakeholders, potentials, vulnerabilities, as well as opportunities for its transformation so that it can deliver high quality diet and affordable nutrition; be inclusive, efficient, resilient, and sustainable; and work for everyone. It was clear from discussions that excessive focus on agriculture and food security resulted in an unintended consequence of creating a less diverse food environment that is unable to provide an adequate variety and affordable, safe, and nutrient dense food. Food systems in Northwest Nigeria states are vulnerable to shocks, stresses, and disruptions. Our food systems are threatened by environmental effects and stresses due to the impact of drought, flooding, erosion, inflation, the COVID-19 pandemic, and conflict. Poverty, unemployment, and insufficient food reserves limit the capacity of our food systems to cope with shocks and stresses. The COVID pandemic has amplified the fragility, inequities and suboptimal functionality of our current food systems thus requiring significant transformations in polices, practices and business models that would make our food systems fit for purpose and enable the delivery of the most important functions rooted in robust evidence base, country context and emerging global trends and realities. There are significant food safety challenges across the food systems domain.Most investments in food safety have been for food exports. There are huge post-harvest losses within the food systems in the region and tremendous loses are recorded. Power imbalances at the household, community, national and global levels are consistently constraining the ability of our food systems to ensure poverty reduction and sustainable, equitable livelihoods. Despite many years of investment in policies, programmes, institutions, and the broader enabling environment, we see glaring indications of a broken food system.236238243244245246247248249250251Discussion Topic ENSURING ACCESS TO SAFE AND NUTRITIOUS FOOD FOR ALL THROUGH TRANSFORMATION OF FOOD SYSTEMS What actions in next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion Topic? Strand 1: Reducing hunger and inequality: Land access to women and youths, improved access to financial services (Credit, Insurance, Warehouse receipt system) to address limited access to quality agricultural inputs, and mechanization, promotion of clustered farming system with leverage to community leaders for guaranteed repayment), strengthened agricultural extension system, paradigm shift from traditional practice to agro-business approach, security and conflict resolution mechanism to involve farmer participation, cropping calendar for staggered production of perishable crops and involving states to reduce gluts, leverage on meteorological data to agricultural practices, reduction of post-harvest loses (infrastructure, cottage processing, and better handling practices), social protection to the vulnerable by giving land loans and development of data base of regular problems Strand 2: Increasing availability and affordability of nutritious foods Promote cultivation of bio-fortified crops, encourage diet diversification (with emphasis on fruits and vegetables), increased productivity of animal source foods (Fish, dairy, and poultry), promote mixed farming practices, encourage production of improved varieties of crops and livestock. Strand 3: Ensuring safe food Encourage production of improved varieties of crops and livestock (resistance to infestation and infection and tolerance to harsh climatic conditions), promote safe use and handling of pesticides, herbicides, drugs, and vaccines), promote water sanitation and hygiene practices, encourage valued addition closer to production areas to minimize post-harvest loses and contamination, establish supporting infrastructure within production clusters to reduce post-harvest loses and contamination (perishables), consumer education to increased demand of safe and nutritious food, strengthened enforcement of food safety standards and regulation. Cross-Cutting Population control, encourage school enrolment to a girl child to at least up to secondary school level, capacity building, research and development, strengthened agricultural extension system to address production and nutrition challenges. Also, encourage of transport technologies that discourage loses such as the use of plastic crates to transport tomatoes instead of baskets. What contributions will our organisations make? - Setting up cooperative organization by the farmers (Farmers) - Policies that guide to resolving identified challenges (Government) - Research and development (academia) - Coordination of intervention that address food system issues (Government, Farmers, Development partners) - Compliance to safety production practices (Government, Manufacturers, Farmers) - Provision of guaranteed uptake of agricultural commodities (Government, Civil societies) - Ease of access to financial services (Government, Financial institutions, Farmers) How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? Monitoring and evaluation of: Productivity rate, improvement of nutrition status, hunger index, accessibility and affordability of food, increase in size of land under cultivation, reduction in post-harvest loses, number of women and youths involved in agricultural activities, reduced incidence of conflicts and disruptions arising from natural disasters.236239243244245246247248249250251Discussion Topic Shift to Healthy and Sustainable Consumption Patterns What actions in next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion Topic? 1. Productions of quality foods that are rich in the right nutrients. 2. Provisions of modern storage facilities to prevent post-harvest losses 3. Establishment of large and modern markets to create opportunities and accessibility to varieties of foods 4. Increase quality and quantity of food supplies to local consumers 5. Creations of awareness and encouragement of behavioral change; 6. Strengthening food safety regulations and compliance. 7. Integrated rural development to improve access to services, technologies and facilities needed for food production, storage and processing. Impacts in 10 years and beyond. 1. Government should invest on mechanized food productions; 2. All stakesholders in food productions and consumptions must invest on researches and data collections. 3. Effective monitoring and evaluations of the roles of the various agencies involved in food productions and consumptions. 4. Education of the masses on the right quality and quantity foods to be consumed. 5. Invest in researches on local food productions 6. Embark on the review of existing guidelines on consumption patterns 7. Behavioural Change in communication (culture and values)   What contributions will our organisations make? a. Effective formulation of policies to prevent food productions’ exposure to susceptible shocks. b. Stakesholders to assist in strengthening policies and extension services delivery c. Ensuring physical security, mechanization, research and development, food safety and foods fortification. d. Establishment of Modern storage facilities, constructions of modern transport facilities, build modern large market to make foods available, accessible and affordable as well as allow for choices of varieties by different consumers and to prevent post-harvest losses. e. should Harnessed all available water Stakesholders resources to create production and processing clusters to allows for individuals to make choices from numerous available foods supplies. How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? 1. Proper monitoring and evaluations of government programmes and projects by all stakesholders. 2. Relevant agencies should ensure effective monitoring and evaluations of food productions, supplies and consumptions patterns. 3. Feedback on the levels of compliances to the various modern practices on food productions and food consumptions. 4. Increased in the quality of seeds available to farmers and this will reflect of the quality of food produced by farmers. 5. Evidence on the levels of awareness creations and review of educational curriculum to accommodate behavioural change in food productions and consumptions patterns. 6. Stakeholders must put in place accountability mechanism; 7. Effective formulations and implementation of Policies Interventions 8. Peer review at international, national and subnational levels in line with agreed commitments. 9. Regular feedback from farmers, consumers and rural dwellers.236240243244245246247248249250251Discussion Topic Boost Nature Positive Production at sufficient scale The actions that would have the greatest impact on boosting nature positive production at sufficient scale in the short term include: consistent policy and support for environment sustainable productivity enhancements, price and inputs support mechanism, re-aligning of anchor borrower and other support programs to better serve small scale farmers and sensitization of relevant stakeholders on adoption of gaps and climate sensitive agricultural production practices. While for the medium term, promotion of climate SMART agriculture, promotion of semi urban agriculture to improve biodiversity and increase the supply of nutritious foods, provision of incentives for adoption of sustainable production systems, development of appropriate legislation and enforcement strategies for controlling unsustainable production practices and updating soil mapping in the NW states for crop and soil specific fertility management practices were identified. The translation of these actions to fruition is by governments, research institutes, industries, non- governmental organizations (NGOs), farmer organizations and other development partners. Measurement of the successes of these actions is mainly by participatory planning cum monitoring with reporting and communication of results. These would respectively take the determination of number of agricultural policies promoted, formulated and implemented, number of climate SMART agricultural technologies developed and promoted, quantity of food produced, proportion of agricultural output by semi-urban residents, value of input support provided in Naira, number of small-scale farmers enriched by the program, number of farmers adopting sustainable technologies and value of incentives provided, number of legislation developed and enhanced, number of states and production clusters covered, number of sensitisation workshops conducted, number of productive infrastructure developed (e.g roads constructed, storage facilities built etc). Divergences revealed in the anchor-borrower program and also in the extent of participation of government in the buying of produce can be managed by minimizing the trade-offs and optimising the synergism. Demographic issues observed with the most important impact on food production in the NW include population displacement due to insecurity (banditry) and flooding, marginalisation of active population (youths and women) and rural-urban migration.236241243244245246247248249250251Discussion Topic Advancing Equitable Livelihood in Nigeria What actions in next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion Topic? a) All political office holders / elected or appointed must have a farm. b) Promotion of youth and woman participation in agricultural value chain. c) Development of relevant data that facilitates identification and expand interventions that provide access to start ups and small businesses. d) Encouragement of mentorship linkages to identify successful individuals and internship programmes to build competencies of youth and vulnerable groups. e) Increase in quality and quantity of extension terms to guide in group formation, training and relevant linkages. What contributions will our organisations make? 1. Civil society organisations are in a position to track, monitor and make government accountable to implementation of policies that would advance equitable livelihoods. 2. Necessary advocacy would be employed by representatives of government present in the group to ensure that lapses noted on the side of government. How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? i) Design an M & E framework as a monitoring tool for the implementation of projects. ii) Design an exit strategy for farmers who are accessing loans.236242243244245246247248249250251Discussion Topic Build Resilience to Vulnerabilities, Shocks and Stresses What actions in next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion Topic? (short term actions) 1. Creating a neighborhood market system; enhanced storage facilities; sensitization of the member of the communities 2. Engagement of farmers through their association or directly for effective implementation; Establishment of feedback mechanism to ensure that the intervention reach the real target; Transparency and accountability; increase quantity and quality of extension teams 3. Creation of farm settlement scheme; Agricultural insurance for farmers; increase access to financial services 4. Entrenchment of gender justice in allocation; formulation of progressive society by women; Low interest rate to encourage women to participate in food value chain; sensitization of women to participate in farming 5. Awareness on weather forecast and climate change; Farmers helpline (call center) Policy on afforestation; Creation of major dams for irrigation and flood control; Creation regulatory agency/authority on fertilizer and pest control (Long-term actions) 6. Creation of green house for all year production e.g. tomatoes; Improvement of our health systems; Agricultural alternative strategies; Regional /Zonal market 7. Conflicts/Banditry (short/long term actions) Strengthen our Justice system; Land tenure to be review through land use act; improvement of our response system; formulation of peace and conflict committee; Policy on livelihood after unforeseen events; What contributions will our organisations make? Actor: Government (Federal, state and LG) Contributions Provision of vaccine, making the vaccine available to the people, sanitization of the people. Protection of life and properties, prompt response to issues, strengthen justices system, fairness in delivery of justices , maintaining the rule of law. Policy on afforestation at all levels, Government agencies creating awareness on the weather forecast and educating the farmers on crops to plant due to climate change, provision of major facilities for farmers, creating/empowerment of regulatory authorities. Review and enforcement of existing agriculture, commerce and trade policies to favour participation of women in food system, Provision of Insurance for farmers to encourage provision of farm produce, policy on creation of farm settlement. Promotion of women participation in agricultural value chain. Actor: Civil society, development partners, Academia Contributions Creating awareness on precautionary measures. Advocate and strengthen conflict resolution mechanism. Educating farmers on climate change and its effect on farm produce, support afforestation programmes, Educating farmers on climate change and its effect on farm produce, support afforestation programmes Promote population control programmes. Development of farmers’ database that will facilitate identification for interventions to reach them. How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? - Set target, Create awareness and inform people about the about the benefit of the vaccine, proper distributions of the vaccine to maintain its potency - Number of people registered for the vaccine, Time to vaccination service, side effect of the vaccine and vaccination rate - Find out the cause of the issues, understand the interest of the parties involved, Keep record of the agreement to prevent feature occurrences. - Human right, Accountability, Public confidence, Social equity, fairness, sentencing of offenders.237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251- The need for upgrading traditional food system to scientifically valid modern technologies. - Cooperation of farming organization and government agencies for improved security and financing. - Consumption of non-conventional foods such as the use of sweet potato leaves for soup preparation. - Goat revolving loan scheme needs to be improved or replaced with a better scheme.. - Assisted farming in the case of ill health of a member farmer. - Anchor -Borrower programme: some say it is not doing well hence it needs to be Improved - Government buying of produce: some say it should only regulate hence not be a key Player. A firm stand needs to be taken for the benefit of all - Population displacement due to insecurity (banditry) and flooding - Marginalisation of active population (youths and women) - Rural-urban migration - Politically motivated issues: politics should be removed from all the activities related to - food systems. - Programs targeted at improving food system should be channeled to thoseinvolved through their associations. - External influence: Development of local materials and adjusting to the peculiarity of our environment will enable growth and development - Openness and accountability should be prioritized

2021-05-10 16:59:23205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/8676/135

74132338492512361641914343162

The participants were actors in the food value chain. Participants were allowed to choose the track that they are most comfortable discussing however, groups that were many were re-distributed so that we have equal number of participant to discuss each track. Facilitators were constantly reminded of the need for every participant to speak and not to allow a participant to dominate the discussion and also to be time conscious during the group dialogue.Overview of the food systems in the South South region was elucidated with the challenges inherent in the food value chain and how they will be addressed. The complexities of the food system was brought to the fore with a call for a holistic course of action that will ensure that Nigeria’s food system deliver high quality diet and affordable nutrition, be inclusive, efficient, resilient, and sustainable, and work for everyone.Overview of the food systems in the South South region was elucidated with the challenges inherent in the food value chain and how they will be addressed.The complexities of the food system was brought to the fore with a call for a holistic course of action that will ensure that Nigeria’s food system deliver high quality diet and affordable nutrition, be inclusive, efficient, resilient, and sustainable, and work for everyone. Having the profile of invited participants before the Dialogue is very important. It will help in ensuring that the right persons are invited for the dialogues and it is all inclusive. The security of the internet link for the Dialogue is very important and should be well protected to avoid it from been hacked because once the security is compromised the next option will be to block further admission of participants.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The Exploratory Dialogue in the South South took an in-depth analysis into the nutrition situation, challenges of the food systems and made critical recommendations to government on how to address the identified challenges. The tracks were discussed in the context of the zone and from the outcome of the discussions areas of interrelationship came out clearly. Cross cutting issues that will generally influence actions on all the tracks were identified as funding, provision of farming inputs, improving processing and preservation method of farm produce, research, innovations, women empowerment, provision of rural infrastructure, channelling the energy of the youth to farm work, improving security of the area etc. Food production and consumption in the zone is based mainly on staples. Ignorance on the right food choices, poor purchasing power affects what people eat. People tend to consume more of what is available rather than on what the body needs. Transportation of farm produce out of the farm to areas where they are needed and where farmers would have value for their labour by selling at a profitable price was identified as a major issue in the region. A lot of food wastage occurs due to the perishability of farm produce, lack of preservation facilities and non-availability of off-takers in the area. The issue of food contamination was also highlighted. Farmers and food handlers still use traditional methods, dangerous chemicals on food to enhance colour and increase shelve life. Farmers are faced with limited access to production inputs, agrochemicals, livestock seeds and extension services, land degradation, conflict and banditry. The impact of COVID – 19 pandemics which resulted in restriction in vehicular and human movement at the wake of the pandemic affected agricultural production resulting in very poor harvest, reduced income, limited access to farmland, shortage of labour for farming and harvesting of plant due to be harvested. Climate change has also affected food production. Excessive dry weather at certain times of the year, flooding and erosion in coastal areas has led to soil degradation, reduced yield of farm produce. The effect of this poor yield is quite discouraging to up-coming young farmers whom might not have the emotional dexterity and resources to continue farming after some terrible losses1q. Weak institutional systems hamper effective implementation of government policies. (The need to establish independent monitoring and evaluation structures of government policies, actions and implementations/deliverables) was recommended. Government incentives (loan, grants, farm input) to farmers most times end up in the hands of non- farmers who will not use the incentive to improve agriculture235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251• The exploratory dialogue brought to the fore the enormous challenges facing Food systems in the zone and government hopes to integrating some of the recommendation into state development plans going forward. • Nutrition education and awareness need to be intensified at all levels. People eat what is available and what they can afford and do not bother to eat the right type of food. There is general lack of awareness of the importance of healthy living. The general notion that eating well is dependent on ones purchasing power should be addressed. Promoting good food preparation methods that will improve quality of food and encourage consumption of healthy, hygienic, wholesome and nutritious food is an issue that needs to be addressed. Government, food handlers, farmers and actors along the food value chain have a lot to do in this regard. • Creation of awareness on the dangers to health of the consumption of contaminated food either through addition of harmful chemicals, poor processing methods, and other unhygienic and unwholesome practices. • The issue of food wastage in the zone requires immediate attention. Government in collaboration with stakeholders need to support the adoption of appropriate technologies in the harvesting, processing and preservation of food. Supporting small holder farmers to acquire cost effective on farm food storage technologies e.g fish smoking kiln. • The zone will urgently need to address the challenges of farm security, situations that women farmers are raped, killed or kidnapped in the farm has instilled so much fear in the people. Women farmers arrange and paid Vigilante group to provide security while at the farm.ng to the cost of production. • The zone is blessed with arable fertile land with teeming youthfully unemployed population. Engaging these youths into agriculture will increase food production and reduce a lot of vices. • Modernization of agricultural practices in the zone will lead to increased food production. Presently, there is adequate production of basic staples like yam, cassava however, there is need for farmers to be more innovative and adopt new technology around nutrition SMART agricultural practices. Training and retraining of agricultural extension workers to enable them provide innovative extension services to farmers will lead to better yield of farm produce. (b) Actions that Stakeholders will take together 1. Investment in agriculture. Pulling funds together by stakeholders will help provide funds needed by the sector. 2. The issue of insecurity in the area was seen as everybody’s business. Communities should help in securing their areas and providing useful information to security agencies of government. 3. Government and the various stakeholder associations as well as individual food handlers have a role to play in putting an end to the use of harmful chemicals, additives, etc in foods to enhance colour or increase volume. 4. Proper disposal of waste from food is the responsibility of all stakeholders. Most of this waste occur as a result of the perishability of agricultural product. Non availability of off takers, lack of storage facilities, poor food handling results in a lot of waste being generated which are not properly disposed resulting in infection and pollution of the environment. To achieve the necessary transformation of the Food Systems in the South south region, stakeholders at the meeting made the following strategic and immediate transition recommendations - Provision of infrastructure in the rural areas e.g good roads, electricity and boreholes. - Government to see farming as a social investment and improve funding of the agricultural sector. - Increase investment in agricultural research and dissemination of findings. - Capacity building of extension officer to strengthen extension services and all actors along the food chain. - Improve investment in preservation and storage technology. - Public enlightenment and nutrition education of actors along the food chain including women of reproductive age and lactating mothers. This will also minimize some harmful practices identified by the participants. - Increase state allocation to the agricultural sector. - Government to create enabling environment to attract private investors into agricultural sector. Improve access to high quality production inputs – water, improved seedling and fertilizer etc. - Sensitization of the public and regulating activities to promote food safety - Improve security of farm lands so that women and others can go to their farms. - Encourage mechanized farming e.g use of tractors. - Creation of new farm settlements and strengthening of old settlements by providing basic amenities and agro-facilities.236238243244245246247248249250251Discussion Topic ENSURE ACCESS TO SAFE AND NUTRITIOUS FOOD FOR ALL What actions in next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion Topic?  Provision of infrastructures to ease farm-market movement of produce, preservation, storage and value addition to food produce: Construction of XX kilometer of road per quarter in each LGA.  Timely access to high quality seedlings and other farm inputs: Resuscitate standardization of seed inputs and high quality service, and promote researchers-farmers’ linkage.  Government to invest in Agriculture as a social investment: Use agriculture to widen coverage and impacts of social protection programmes and creates enabling environment for private investors to complement government efforts.  Increase innovation and adoption of technology through strengthened extension services: Adequate training and support to extension workers, and devise innovative ways to reduce the cost of production in agriculture.  Promote indigenous knowledge and access to research findings and funding: Uncover old age practices and indigenous climate-smart crops to boost supply and affordability of nutritious foods.  Create awareness and promote education on healthy eating and food demonstration: Targets include general public, food vendors, farmers, and food handlers.  Homestead gardening, small livestock rearing and intercropping should be encouraged: To increase access to various types of fruits and vegetables, spices and shrubs, and animal foods that complement household food system.  Focus on production of crops and animal foods where the region has comparative advantage What contributions will our organisations make? Communities: Unfreeze land resources and make them available to individuals with interest in agriculture to boost production and aggregation of farm to encourage mechanized farming. Private sector: Support the farming system and less exploit the system because of weak coordination mechanism. Support farmers to adopt best agricultural practices to improve yields and embrace diversification of production. Civil servants: Support farmers and agro-based actors to enhance access to safe and nutritious foods. Farmers representative: Promote creation of vegetable farming cluster to support production of vegetables Government/Policy makers: Ensure vegetable cluster farmers have access soft loan. How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? Conduct baseline assessment and integrate an effective monitoring and evaluation scheme. Notable progress-indicating landmarks include improved extension workers-farmers’ ratio, engagement of community extension agents, farmers’ increased access to production inputs and other infrastructures, enabling environment for the growth and flourishing of agri-business, and improved youth friendliness of agri-business. Periodic sensitization of the population on healthy eating based on local recipes and increased budgetary allocation to agricultural sector.236239243244245246247248249250251TRACK 2: SHIFT TO HEALTHY SUSTAINABLE CONSUMPTION PATTERNS What actions in the next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion Topic? The actions include capacity building/empowerment for farmers especially women, massive enlightenment and nutrition education, improved farm land security, encouraging mechanized farming, research and supply of improved farm seedlings. What contributions will our organisations make? Organizational contributions include buying into the ideas and providing political will power especially the Government and its agencies. Organizations are the stakeholders and will provide the man power and skills needed to actualise the findings/recommendations in this summit. The organisations include the Local Government, Farmers’ Union, NGOs, Nutritionist, Youth bodies, Traditional institutions, Transporters, Academia, Research Institutes, Market women and Women Affairs. These organizations will cooperate will the Government and give the necessary support whenever their services are required. How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful?2 The key indicators that will show that the actions are being successful will include if in State, there is observed high percentage/increase in production of vegetables, fruits, legumes and nuts. reduction in the cost of food production and consumption, easy access to funding by interested farmers and others, increased percentage of women and youths getting involved in farming and getting loans/grants, reduction in unnecessary levies for farm produces along the food chain by touts, availability of security in farm lands, improved food inputs for farmers such as fertilizers, seedlings and farming tools and good storage and perseveration facilities.236240243244245246247248249250251Action track 3: To Boost Nature Positive Production Group What actions in the next 3 years will have the greatest impact on the Discussion Topic? 1. Activities and ways that support increased production and better Food system Governance . i. Mapping and classification of agricultural lands for crop and livestock production, processing and distribution. ii. Agricultural land development iii. Allocation of developed land to farmers iv. Creating new farm settlements, strengthening old settlements v. Encouraging high profile agriculture vi. Engaging farmers in contract farming. Immediate Actions Needed • Organize Agricultural Transformation Business Summit to sensitize stakeholders and showcase the business opportunities, for investments, collaboration • Build capacity of farmers on Climate resilience and sustainable agriculture, modern farming techniques and innovations in value addition • Provide credit facilities to farmers and monitor utilization to avoid diversion • Reorientation and awareness creation for Youths and Women on agribusiness What contributions will our organizations make? This group was made up of professionals : Agriculturists working at ADPs, Ministries of Agriculture and other parastatal, agro- allied industries. The group can : i. Influence government policies for improved food system, increased food production ,processing and distribution ii. Make budgetary provisions to enable the government sponsor the projects iii. Work as extension officers to assist in building the capacity of farmers iv. Work as consultants to investors v. Organize the agribusiness summit HOW WILL IT BE POSSIBLE TO TELL IF THESE ACTIONS ARE BEING SUCCESSFUL? HOW TO MEASURE PROGRESS OR HOW SUCCESSFUL THE PROPOSED ACTIONS ARE The following parameters can be used to assess the level of success achieved: i. Increased utilization of agricultural resources - arable land, water resources, etc ii. Diversification of food production- production of exotic vegetables, fruits etc iii. Reduced “importation “of food items from neighbouring states. iv. Number of people getting involved in agricultural activities. v. Number of extension workers effectively mobilized to build the capacity of farmers. vi. Number of high investors To achieve the above, there is urgent need for: I. Baseline Survey on agricultural activities and potentials to enable the identification and enumeration of stakeholders and resources for improving the food system. II. Create effective and achievable monitoring and evaluation Plan (M&E ) III. Data Banks to be created to record farmers’ population, specialization, scope, outputs , progress etc IV. Regular updates on all data collated.236241243244245246247248249250251DISCUSSION TOPIC ADVANCE EQUITABLE LIVELIHOOD What actions in the next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion Topic? • Programs to mitigate the effect of natural disasters and deficiencies. Irrigation, weather forecast be made available • Strengthening human capital development in technical and vocational programs in the agriculture and agro allied sectors • Provision of adequate credit and relaxing the conditions (Bottle Necks) to accessing finance for agriculture and agro allied sector. • Social norms that are discriminatory and limit equitable livelihood should be identified and dismantled • Awareness and mentoring to change the mindsets on gender and age What contributions will our organizations make? • Mobilization and sensitization • Awareness campaigns and mentoring sessions • Develop strategy to eliminate credits for agriculture and agro allied getting to unintended persons (beneficiaries) • Monitoring of input distribution and farms through drones and GPS. And introduction of voucher payment system, which interfaces with farmer and the input suppliers directly. How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? • Monitoring by use or deployment of ICT, video conferencing where possible. • Collect baseline data against which change can be assessed. • Develop monitoring and evaluation plan (M&E plan)236242243244245246247248249250251Discussion Topic Building resilience to vulnerability, shock & stresses in Food System What actions in the next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion Topic? Need Assessment Sensitization & Verification of Facts Security for farmers What contributions will our organisations make? Training of stakeholders Follow-up of developmental plans Capacity building How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful Physical result in the field Livelihood developments Increase in food production and food security Practices in value addition237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251GROUP 1 Surprises on the high burden of malnutrition in the region despite rich and diverse food culture. Strategies for government risk-sharing in agriculture and regulate inputs supply chain. Depowering of smallholder farmers by investment in costly green-houses and mechanized farming. GROUP 3 DIVERGENCIES A. Challenges improving the food system cannot be achieved through the farmers without direct involvement of the various governments as farmers have the potentials to develop if government removes bottlenecks. B. MANAGEMENT OF THE DIVERGENT Need to educate policy makers on their role in setting the motion for the expected improvement in food systems. A. Youths poorly motivated in agriculture attributed to change in societal values . B. MANAGEMENT OF THE DIVERGENT Need for reorientation of youths, making agriculture more attractive. GROUP 4 • Cultural and social norms that promote gender imbalance and access to productive assets (Identify and Eliminate) • Credit to unintended beneficiaries (In managing, there is need to establish proper disbursement, management and evaluation mechanisms) • Weak institutional systems hampering effective implementation of government policies. (The need to establish independent monitoring and evaluation structures of government policies, actions and implementations/deliverables) • Science and technology weak link with practices. (Extension service delivery system strengthened) GROUP 5 Mitigation & adaptation process Capacity Building Peace talk/dialogue

2021-05-11 09:56:37205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/17044/95

115631774

NoIn the Japan National Food Systems Dialogue with Nougyoujoshi Project (female farmers groups project) held on 13th April 2021, MAFF explained the outline of FSS including the purpose and the key issues of sustainable food system and asked following questions. Q1 Characteristics of Japanese agriculture and what Japan can contribute to the world Q2 What kind of support would you like to ask the national and subnational governments for activities in the community? Q3 What kind of support would you like to ask the national and subnational governments for activities in the community? Q4 What are the most difficult things you have experienced as female head of the family farm? Q5 Numerical goals are set for the ratio of female executives in agricultural cooperatives and members of the agriculture committees. Are there any impediments or necessary support for female farmers to become an executive member? The members from the project explained their various efforts for SDGs and made comments on the questions.

234240241244251In this dialogue, we discussed challenges and opportunities especially related to Action Track 3 and 4.235240241244251The meeting with Nougyoujoshi Project (female farmers groups project) was held to exchange opinions related to SDGs and sustainable food systems. Please see the attached file for details of discussions.

2021-05-11 10:22:47205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/17071/95

7432525

NoIn the Japan National Food Systems Dialogue with Japanese Consumers’ Cooperative Union (JCCU) held on 15th April 2021, MAFF explained the outline of FSS including the purpose and the key issues of sustainable food system. The members from JCCU made comments on that.

234239240244In this dialogue, we discussed challenges and opportunities especially related to Action Track 2 and 3.235239240244The meeting with Japanese Consumers’ Cooperative Union (JCCU) was held to exchange opinions related to SDGs and sustainable food systems. The main remarks of the participants are as follows: (1) In order to facilitate consumers' understanding of organic farming, we would like to promote exchanges between producers and consumers and create a place where consumers can experience the benefits of organic farming in cooperation with other organizations. (2) For expanding the land area of organic farming, it is necessary that prefectures and JAs establish a system to provide many farm producers with the guidance of agricultural management and certification support in an organized manner, whereby encouraging the producers to shift toward organic farming. (3) Organic farming is not the only solution, and it is important for many farm producers to gradually reduce environmental load in their farming. (4) Although the needs and demand for organic farm products are increasing, its supply is still small and there are only a few organic farm products that can be placed in stores, so they are only put on places such as the local product corners or shelves. (5) If you try to use organic raw materials for manufacturing processed food, they are now mostly imported. If the domestic production of organic farming increases, using domestically produced organic materials for manufacturing processed food could be considered. (6) Diet harmonizing with the climate and farming method in each local area is considered to have the smallest environmental load. (7) While some people in Japan are in a situation where they have no food to eat, there is the food loss and waste issue. So, it is necessary to establish a mechanism to connect these problems. It is desirable to have a system that can provide food support to children and students while reducing domestic food loss and waste. (8) Seafood is an excellent source of protein, but consumers cannot eat it with a feeling of security unless problems such as overfishing and other fishery management problems and IUU fishery problems are resolved. Especially for domestic marine products, it is necessary to take measures to prevent IUU-derived products from entering the market.

2021-05-11 10:56:36205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/17083/95

1394621311211332

NoIn the Japan National Food Systems Dialogue with the Planning Subcommittee of the Council of Food, Agriculture and Rural Area Policies held on 22nd April 2021, MAFF explained the current status of the preparation for FSS including the implementation of state dialogues and the direction of Japan’s commitment. The members from the subcommittee made comments on that.

234238239240241242244248249In this dialogue, we discussed challenges and opportunities especially related to all Action Tracks.235238239240241242244248249The meeting with the Planning Subcommittee of the Council of Food, Agriculture and Rural Area Policies was held to exchange opinions related to SDGs and sustainable food systems. Main remarks are as follows: (1) Food Systems Summit would be a very good opportunity to publicize Japan’s agriculture, forestry, and fisheries to the world. The government should promote every aspect of them including Japan’s food culture. (2) It is important to sow the seeds in the summit for the post covid-19 growth, such as recovery of inbound tourism. (3) I hope the outcome of Food Systems Summit will revitalize Japan including its agriculture.

2021-05-11 18:09:51205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/6197/17

4663262252167213232511521311112312421814610

The first Dialogue of the Republic of Armenia Dialogue (FSSD) was held as hybrid meeting with possibility of online live stream which allowed to engage more participants in discussions and enabled them to submit questions and comments in the chat of the virtual platform. The event embraced the Summit principles of engagement: Act with Urgency, Commit to the Summit, Be Respectful, Recognize Complexity, Embrace Multi-Stakeholder Inclusivity, Complement the Work of Others, and Build Trust. Therefore, comprehensive preparatory work has been done with dialogue participants for making sure that their engagement contributes to the Summit and to the elaboration of pathways to food systems transformation in adding value to SDGs. Several meetings have been organized beforehand with all dialogue participants and their relevant representatives to clearly point out the vision, objectives and expected outcomes of the Summit. The so called “pre-dialogue” or preparatory sessions helped to motivate the participants and created a respectful atmosphere as a foundation for a genuine dialogue and collective action toward the goal of the Summit. As a result, the multi-stakeholder dialogue envisaged during the event has turned to a “safe space” for promoting trust, encouraging mutual respect, and establishing an effective platform for debate, collaboration, consensus-building, and shared commitment making. In addition, The Chatham House Rule of non-attribution encouraged participants to engage in frank discussion with a collaborative approach. Only dialogue participants, a facilitator, and two note-takers were permitted in each discussion session.The event embraced multi-stakeholder inclusivity and included stakeholders from across the food system, ranging from Armenian producers, agricultural organizations, food industry, research and academic institutions, international organizations, farm and food workers, and civil society groups. In order to address the challenges, potential and vulnerabilities of Armenian food systems through a holistic approach, multi-stakeholder group discussions were organized. The topics discussed during the dialogue were formulated in the form of short, ambitious statements, to be realized in the upcoming 10 years. During the first session of the Dialogue panelists were invited to present strategic topics in line with the national context and priorities as well as in consonant with UNFSS Action Tracks. The speakers of the first session have had specific expertise on certain topics discussed. The presentations were followed by prompt questions raised by the curator and participants. Key points were summarized by the curator. The second session of the Dialogue was comprised of group discussions on Food safety and resilience in the agri-food supply chains. The group discussions brought together a wide range of stakeholders and ensured a constructive exchange. Two note takers following the group discussions sent their anonymized notes to the Curator. Based on the key points summarized by the curator from the first part of the event and the notes of the breakout sessions, an anonymized report has been developed to be incorporated into the official feedback form.Clear set of rules should be set by the dialogue convenors in line with the Summit principles of engagement. Moreover, these rules should be explained and strictly followed throughout the preparation phase and the final implementation of the event. In the case of the first Dialogue of the Republic of Armenia the Chatham House Rule of non-attribution encouraged participants to engage in frank discussion with a collaborative approach. Only dialogue participants, a facilitator, expert researcher for consultation, and two note-takers were permitted in each dialogue breakout session. International and domestic observers were invited to observe the opening and closing plenary sessions but were not invited into the breakout sessions.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246248249250The first two-stage National Dialogue focused on identifying challenges to: (a) ensure the availability of safe nutritious food; (b) boost nature-positive production at scale and, (c) strengthen capacities to resist vulnerabilities and the often changing economic environment; thus, building more socially, economically, and environmentally sustainable food systems in Armenia. The discussions were broken into six main challenge areas aligned with the UN Food Systems Summit five “action tracks” as outlined below: 1. Sustainable and effective use of agricultural land. Effective mechanisms for bringing unutilized land into production. Improving farm structures. Increase productivity and efficiency. Land market development. Regulation of access and control of agricultural land. 2. Investment in sustainable agricultural practices. Green agriculture for sustainable food supply chain. Adoption of climate smart, resource efficient, innovative and eco-friendly technologies. Involvement of government and intermediate organizations in promoting sustainable agriculture. 3. The role of Public and Private investments in infrastructure and market linkages. Investment in logistics of a value chain. 4. Resilience and nutrition; the role of nutrition in building resilience to shocks, and practical contextual steps to ensure safe, quality, and nutritional food for all. 5. Promotion of inclusive agribusiness models: establishment of financially self-sustaining and diversified seed supply system. Import substitution and enhancing food security through commercialization of seed supply. 6. Agriculture 4.0 and food systems transformation. New stage of technological development and e-agriculture as a key enabler of agricultural and rural development. Finally, each of the two breakout session targeting several issues related to the five “action track” challenge areas. Participants were assigned to one of these challenge areas in two parallel sessions: 1. Food Safety and 2. Resilience in agri-food value chains.235238239240241242243244245246248249250Transparency, inclusiveness and ownership were of fundamental importance to guarantee successful outcomes of the first Dialogue of the Republic of Armenia. Different actors across the entire food systems were identified and selected in the preparatory phase. The expertise, past experiences and knowledge of these actors were taken into consideration in order to develop a common vision for a long-term sustainability of Armenian food systems. In total six panel discussion topics were jointly identified in accordance with the dialogue procedures and targeting the challenges that the actors of Armenian food systems are currently facing. Each topic was presented by a selected representative of governmental, international or local organization and discussed involving all panel participants for a collective sharing of reflections on each of the topics discussed. Finally, the results and outcomes of discussions were synthesized to incorporate into main findings. The most important output is that within the frames of this Summit a food systems’ transformation action plan shall be developed to stimulate the emergence of new ideas. In addition, the experience and knowledge of the parties involved will enable to unleash hidden opportunities and develop modern food systems with joined efforts. A major finding is the cooperation especially between the government and private sector actors being ambitious in finding solutions in developing agriculture, taking into consideration environmental issues to build strong food systems. This is important for building strong agricultural production and healthy diets for the population. In this regard, the RA Ministry of Economy presented 8 conceptual actions including the efficient use of agricultural lands. Currently, the 50% of agricultural lands in Armenia is used ineffectively, and the Ministry of Economy has initiated an inventory to find out the objective and subjective reasons of that. The ultimate goal is to ensure the development of land resources and the creation of a land bank, which is envisaged to be implemented with the support of FAO, so that the accurate information shall be provided to the potential investors. In general, the main finding was that the international partners are conducting diverse activities for strengthening food systems in Armenia. In this regard, the European Union Green Agriculture Initiative in Armenia project was presented. The project is officially launched in March 2020 and is funded by the European Union (€ 9,7 million) and co-funded and implemented by the Austrian Development Agency (€ 2 million), the operational unit of the Austrian Development Cooperation. The Government counterpart of the project is the RA Ministry of Economy. The project is partially implemented by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in Armenia. It aims at increasing investments in sustainable agriculture – demographics, environ aspects, socio-economic aspects. Intervention areas are green ag for sustainable food supply chain; adoption of climate smart, resource efficient, innovative and eco-friendly technologies; involvement of gov and intermediate organizations in promoting sustainable agriculture. Incentives for transition from conventional to green ag – tax incentives for crops, strong extension system, international cooperation and teaching students as future actors. In addition to international actors, the participation of actors in the logistics segment of the chain was essential, since their presence here is already a sign of dialogue. As a result of the discussions, it was important to find out how the private sector and the state can work together, because the more developed is the state, the more infrastructures are created from the private sector. In this regard, the state support programs are crucial. The private support to the state must be systematic, with the right instruments, especially at the initial stage, in order to ensure balanced and harmonious development.236238239241243244248249Ensure the availability of safe nutritious food for all • The importance of international cooperation and support in the sphere of food safety, compliance with international requirements to increase food export volumes, RA policy and international integration processes, the peculiarities of the RA cooperation with EU and EEU, • Ways of cooperation development amongst government bodies, relations of state bodies with food producing and processing organizations, state policy towards business, • The influence of COVID-19 pandemic and the war in Armenia on food producing and processing organizations, RA economic indices and food industry tendencies, • The installation of food safety international standards and the problem of infrastructures absence, gaps in the food safety legislation and necessary amendments, • The application of ISO22000 standard and the installation of HACCP systems in food producing and processing organizations, RA legislation and sub legislative acts, RA government decisions on and schedules of food safety systems installation, application of simplified food safety models (procedures), • The roles and clarification of functions (risk assessment, monitoring, organizing inspections and state control over food producing and processing organizations) of the bodies responsible for the sector, • Risk-based assessment and inspection of food safety systems, • Agriculture automation and installation of computer technologies, installation of innovative technologies in the RA agriculture sphere and the perspectives of automation, • Management of registration process of state registry – proper application of classifiers, • Presentation of production plan by food producing and processing organizations, • Establishment of databases on economic entities, need of integration of various databases in increasing food industry efficiency, need of inventory processes in agriculture, • Digitization process in cattle breeding and ensuring traceability of food of animal origin in the whole food production chain, the system of animal numbering and census and the RA efforts in installing the system, • Development of laboratory capacities in the food sector, establishment of reference laboratory for food industry, training of laboratory specialists in food sector, • Animal disease prevention by means of digitization of cattle breeding, reducing threats to human health due to food safety, One health concept, • The perspectives of animal numbering and census system installation and current problems, mapping of the pastures and the areas envisaged for animal keeping, • Sanitary-hygienic situation of the food of animal origin and the role of slaughter houses, • The importance of increasing computer literacy in rural communities and the problem of absence of digital technologies • Preparing food safety specialists and organizing their training, the quality of advisory services in the sphere of food safety and the main reasons of shortcomings • Increasing awareness of food industry workers, population (consumers) on food safety. Since food safety is directly and indirectly interconnected with various other sectors of economy, during the dialogue much importance was attached to the coordinated approach towards solution of food safety problems as major outcome of the discussions.236238239240241242243244245246248249250Boost nature-positive production at scale Based on the discussions two perspectives for this outcome can be described: Perspective 1: Improving Vulnerability and risks in Social Protection for boosting nature-positive production Approach 1: Eligibility criteria for safety nets are enhanced and regularly updated. This could include applying food security dimensions into the safety-net measures. Approach 2: Establish Shock Responsive Food Security Safety Nets Short-term: Establish shock response mechanism to food insecure Armenian populations affected by the conflict and COVID-19 pandemic Medium and long term: Social safety nets as comprehensive package Nutrition education and awareness on healthy food choices and purchases Apply social behavior change and teach the impacts of copying mechanisms and reduce the application of severe copying mechanisms Approach 3: Establish early warning system components for food security Components: Price hikes Monitoring of shocks: economic, political, environmental risks and shocks Natural and man-made disasters Nutrition: Obesity and malnutrition trends (all age groups) Rise of some Non-Communicable Diseases: Diabetes, hyper-tension “Over consumption” of certain foods Perspective 2: Building resilience for boosting nature-positive production Resilience can build through investment in food systems that are nutritionally sensitive, and socially responsible yet demand driven and profitable. This requires a transformation of food systems, where food security is at the center of national development at all levels. True transformation of food systems takes a holistic approach with consumer demand and nutritional consumption patterns as the key driver. Opportunities for stable and safe food production are generated by this demand. The concept of investing in Food Systems links the most profitable and profit oriented parts of our current economic systems to those who do not seem to benefit from economic systems in their current form, or who are struggling to connect to specific parts of those systems. This is a farm to fork approach that builds networks along the value chain and fosters links between profitable activities and socially marginalized groups. The benefits of investing in SME’s along the value chain and taking a whole system approach are as follows; small businesses are strengthened, household level incomes increase, jobs are created, educational opportunities arise, people have access to nutritious and safe food, investments are made in innovative and green technologies that address climate change. This acts as a buffer when a shock hits and allow for speedy and more solid recovery (both economic, social and food security). This is a new way of thinking and doing business that leverages on the problem of malnutrition and hunger to achieve multiple-gains; economic growth, jobs, education, and a more healthy and productive population that is resilient to shocks, and recovers faster from them when they occur.236241242243245246248249Strengthen capacities to resist vulnerabilities and the often changing economic environment Based on the results and findings of the discussion by this outcome focus lies on the logistic segment of the food value chains and Public and Private investments. From the point of view of the food security value chain logistic infrastructures playing serious role and government-private cooperation in this area can be considered not only mandatory and important, but also it is supposed to be an indicator for the development of harmonious government-private relationship. Therefore, it is impossible to imagine the existence and their further development of logistic infrastructures without any state and public support especially in the Republic of Armenia. The degree of efficiency of infrastructure and necessity are determined by the level of development of market relations. It is an important component for the private sector to have the opportunity to participate in the evaluation of such a value chain. For emerging countries like Armenia with changing economic environment the logistic infrastructures and their further development mostly depend on state regulations and subsidies aiming at: • Encouraging investment through direct and indirect participation (subsidies, tax policy, local development projects), • Simplify the process of permitting usage of state potential resources (land use, permissions of constructions, utility), • Sustainable labor market development and educational policy to create new values and ensure continuity (social-public education and trainings). The development of logistic infrastructure in Armenia would increase efficiency in the competitive markets, add great value, create new employments possibilities and thus, strengthen capacities of directly and indirectly involved value chain actors to resist vulnerabilities.237238239240241242243244245246248249250A notable area of divergence that emerged in the discussion was disagreement about the focus on different segments of the value chain. The representatives of the local private sector actors said that a stronger emphasis should be placed on the processing, transportation, and logistic segments, where the representatives of the WFP highlighted the final consumption part of the chain and achieving healthy diets of particular importance. The group’s discussion ended with a recognition that there should be a holistic and inclusive approach targeting entire food value chains for being able to build sustainable food systems in Armenia.

2021-05-12 14:18:31204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/6814/203

1320568481174553235283852514391151441312514382617

The five convenors paid careful attention to ensuring that the Summit principles of engagement were fully incorporated in the organization of this dialogue. The urgency to act for accelerating progress on the achievement of the SDGs in the Mediterranean by 2030 was strongly highlighted. The participants were identified and invited from diverse stakeholder groups, ensuring balance in gender and geographical representation from countries on all shores of the Mediterranean. The eight discussion topics were designed as entry points to capture the multiple aspects and perspectives of the complexity of food systems. The facilitators and notetakers of the discussion groups were carefully briefed to ensure that they created a space for dialogue that was conducive to respect and trust. Participants in the eight discussion groups were able to openly voice their opinions and exchange broadly on potential solutions to the complex and interconnected challenges that Mediterranean food systems are facing. This Dialogue acted as a catalyst of people, organizations and existing networks that have the potential to join forces and bring concrete impact on the ground, leading food systems in the Mediterranean towards sustainability, ultimately advancing regional progress on the 2030 Agenda. All participants embraced the principle of “acting with urgency”, recognizing the importance of accelerating the pace of change in their recommendations and committing to act. They were all committed to contribute to the Food Systems Summit’s preparation and follow-up, recognizing it as an important milestone to catalyse further action on the transformation of food systems in the Mediterranean.The design of the Dialogue reflected the principles of complexity, respect and trust. Discussions in the eight groups were open and enriching for all participants, and followed the Chatham House rule. The 130+ participants were all given the opportunity to voice their opinions equally and inclusively in the discussion sessions. Participants came from 21 different countries across the Mediterranean and beyond, and belonged to more than 13 different stakeholders groups. The discussion sessions served their purpose of highlighting new and linking up already existing game-changing ideas and science- and knowledge-based solutions for the coming years, highly relevant in the context of the Summit’s vision, Action Tracks and Levers of Change. Reflections highlighted the complexity of food systems and the urgent necessity of a common understanding that could lead to the development of a SFS conceptual framework specific to the Mediterranean context, taking into consideration local specificities and cultural aspects. The Dialogue was also an opportunity for some stakeholders to link up and continue the discussions further in other contexts, such as the “SFS-MED Platform”, a multi-stakeholder initiative currently under co-development by CIHEAM, FAO and UfMS, as an affiliated project of the One Planet network’s Sustainable Food Systems Programme (OPN-SFSP).Bringing together stakeholders groups that are very different can be challenging, but is a crucial opportunity to capitalize on ideas emerging from possible areas of divergence, and to create synergies and partnerships with potentially high impact on areas of consensus.

Yes

234238239240241242244246248249251The first SFS-MED Independent Food Systems Summit Dialogue on “Pathways for the future of food systems in the Mediterranean” was conceived with the aim of fostering a broader common understanding of the complex environment of Sustainable Food Systems (SFS), with a context-specific focus on the Mediterranean. The Dialogue allowed the identification of pathways based on both science and local knowledge for coping with the multiple and interdependent challenges that the region is facing, further exacerbated by the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. The objectives of the Dialogue were: • Ensuring a deeper understanding of the interconnections and interdependences within Mediterranean food systems at every stage (from production, processing, distribution, marketing to the consumption of food, including food waste), based on consolidated scientific evidence and local knowledge. • Catalysing joint action, using the Mediterranean Diet as one of the levers to improve the sustainability and resilience of Mediterranean food systems, by bridging Sustainable Consumption and Production (SCP). • Engaging a wide network of food systems stakeholders within the broader frameworks of green, blue and circular economy, to design future scenarios of sustainable food systems in the Mediterranean region. More than 130 participants from different geographical locations and stakeholder groups came together to explore the complexity of sustainable food systems and to advance a common understanding through inclusive discussions in eight discussion groups. The eight break-out sessions, each focusing on a given key entry point for more sustainable food systems in the Mediterranean, were: 1. Leveraging the science-policy nexus to understand interconnections and interdependences within Mediterranean food systems; 2. Sustainable food from the sea: a key pillar of an SDG-oriented blue and circular economy in the Mediterranean; 3. Towards a green and circular economy for sustainable food systems in the Mediterranean; 4. Sustainable management of land and water in the context of climate change in the Mediterranean; 5. The Mediterranean diet as a lever for sustainable consumption and production in the Mediterranean; 6. The role of cities in building more sustainable food systems in the Mediterranean; 7. Equitable and inclusive livelihoods in food systems through skills and entrepreneurship; 8. Technological and organizational innovation for accelerating food systems transformation to achieve the SDGs in the Mediterranean. Thanks to the high participation rate and the effective coordination provided by the facilitators and notetakers, the discussion sessions were extremely fruitful; the outcomes of this first Dialogue will be a core component of the second on 21 June 2021 (https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/15756), during which high-level participants will exchange views on the key enablers needed to advance food systems’ sustainability in the Mediterranean.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251One key outcome that emerged from this first SFS-MED Dialogue was the need to strengthen a common understanding of sustainable food systems and their complexities, through a holistic approach, specific for the Mediterranean context. It was recognized that the multiple challenges of the Mediterranean, further exacerbated by the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, are deeply interrelated. Food system transformation is a very complex and dynamic process that requires considering food systems in their entirety, linking production and consumption, and in a cross-sectorial as well as inter-disciplinary manner. The importance of the nexus approach, which allows to connect and valorise the connection among different aspects and areas related to food, was also acknowledged. To this effect, it was recognised that: green, blue and circular economy are pivotal to food systems transformation; mainstreaming biodiversity and sustainable land and water management are key issues to climate change resilience; sustainable fisheries and aquaculture are also central to improve the sustainability of food systems; cities and local food policies play a critical role in moving towards more sustainable food systems. Furthermore, the Mediterranean diet was highlighted as one of the levers of change for bridging sustainable consumption and production. Solutions alone, however, were recognized as not enough: they need to be taken up by stakeholders in a collaborative manner. Common, crosscutting aspects highlighted in all discussion groups include: • The need of multi-stakeholder dialogue on SFS among all shores of the Mediterranean. Platforms and networks were recognized by most of the groups as important mechanisms to raise awareness, share lessons and ideas, co-create solutions and approaches, foster action, etc. • Integrated policies and governance as key to promote the sustainability of food systems in the Mediterranean region. This emerged throughout all the entry points considered, e.g.: pricing, regulatory frameworks, voluntary guidelines, food procurement, school feeding, education programmes, food waste and circular economy, links with tourism, among others. • Finance and investment (public and private) for enabling the transformation of food systems towards sustainability, with a focus on inclusiveness. • The crucial role of innovation, sustainable technologies, digitalization and data, both quantitative and qualitative. These need to be inclusive and accessible especially to small-scale farmers, fishers and small-holders. • Education, training and awareness raising as potential game changers in transforming both production and consumption patterns. • Other crosscutting actions touching different entry points, such as shortening food value chains, food labelling, etc. as mechanisms to improve the sustainability of food systems as a whole. • Research and evidence generation to identify and upscale resilient and sustainable solutions and to advice investors/policy makers on sustainable choices. The inception of the SFS-MED Platform, under co-development by CIHEAM, FAO and UfMS as an affiliated initiative of the OPN-SFSP, was foreseen as a solution to integrate different entry points and networks/initiatives under a common sustainable food systems approach.236238239240241242243246249250• Bottlenecks: o Need for holistic food systems policies, that are based on both science and local knowledge; o Need to address trade-offs among different sustainability dimensions and also among different food systems actors; o Overcome the silos of knowledge and disciplinary boundaries; o The need for reliable data both quantitative, and especially qualitative; o Counter power imbalances by participatory decision making; o Directing trans-disciplinary science to involve the civil society; o The overriding importance of political will; o The need for transformational changes in the whole system • Concrete Actions: o Include all relevant stakeholders, including science, civil society, and in particular also those that are the most vulnerable in our food systems, in the policy-making process. o Inclusive multi-stakeholder mechanisms to allow for participatory decision-making that address power imbalances among food systems actors; o Encourage “productive conflict” for problem solving together with mutual trust and respect, placing producers and vulnerable groups at the centre as co-decision-makers and co-innovators; o Ensure proper governance; o Develop the concept of local territories to shorten value chains and provide livelihoods. • Key examples (positive deviants) of success: o City level food councils o Examples from France, Morocco (generation green and zero pesticides) as well as local and national level food policy or advisory councils as new mechanisms for collaborative decision-making and implementation (e.g. Canada); o In Italy, school mealtime as an educative experience to learn about sustainability – eating fruits and vegetables, avoiding waste and develop social skills in eating behavior around the table (culture); o Agricultural transformation to work closer with farmer’s market and the local populations in order to shorten value chains and advance the 13 principles on agroecology and other innovations of the HLPE report. • Note: All of the discussions concerning Sustainable Food Systems have been overshadowed by the current COVID pandemic. While the health outcomes continue to be tragic, the economic fall-outs have yet to make their full impact and are likely to be a global problem in the coming years especially regarding small scale farmers, SMEs and livelihoods in the hospitality sector and more. Hence, resilience and coping strategies, as well as availability, accessibility, stability and agency dimensions to food security, must now be factored into all our deliberations towards the Food Systems Summit.236239240241243244249250• Improving the sustainability of fisheries and aquaculture practices in the Mediterranean basin In spite of positive changes, the sustainability of fisheries in the region remains a critical issue. On the other hand, the continuous growth of aquaculture provides sustainability issues related to the farm models and their practices. o Supporting research on organic aquaculture o Supporting research and private investments on low trophic species, and new seafood products (i.e.: algae) o Supporting the adoption of fisheries management plans at local level – Technical assistants by scientific research centres o Regional Platform for the digitalization and data collection on fisheries and aquaculture o Promoting research on low-impact fishing and aquaculture practices (i.e.: bio-plastic nets for mussels, selectivity of fishing gears) o Regional Network on Best practices for a sustainable fisheries and aquaculture • Increasing the added value of seafood products Low income and losses in the seafood value chain as well as the unequal distribution of economic returns among different actors is too high and interventions are needed to balance o Research on nutritional properties of new species and improving the general awareness – Basket of new seafood products o Design and promote a label or recognition system for Mediterranean seafood (diet) products integrating all sustainability dimensions (also enhancing origin) o Design of innovative landing site for the proper management of the seafood value chain and marine litter management on land o Design of Community Lab for processing the SSF products (not highly valued fish, overfishing, commercial value fish) respecting the seafood quality and safety standards o Technical assistance program for supporting innovation in the seafood industrial development: zero waste, better exploitation of by-catch and by-products. o Structuring of social security system for SSF operators o Traceability and control of origin of seafood products (fighting IUU fishing) • Negative impacts of pollution (plastics and contaminants) and anthropogenic activities on environmental quality of the sea The Mediterranean Sea is one of the areas most affected by marine litter. Impacts vary: entanglement and ingestion, bio-accumulation and bio-magnification of toxins, introduction of invasive species, damages habitats, etc. The achievement of the conservation goals is hampered. o Promoting Regional Network and supporting actions and plans for the monitoring activities on marine litter (on the sea and biota) and anthropogenic activities impacts o Supporting the decarbonization and maritime activities more eco-friendly o Promoting and drafting regional recommendations for improving the national legislative frameworks for the marine litter collection by fishermen o Design of innovative landing site for the proper management of the seafood value chain and marine litter management on land. • Supporting skills and entrepreneurship of fishermen and aquaculture operators Human resource development needs to be carried out thoroughly, directed and integrated in various fields, especially when the main activity fishery, is a high-risk business which needs to promote the diversification of income, generational change, and gender inclusion. o Improving and providing proper capacity building pathways for SSF operators aimed at increasing added value of seafood products and promoting diversification of economic activities, multi-functionality, direct sale, entrepreneurship.236239240244245248250251Set in place instruments, mechanisms, programs/projects for the development of greener and circular food systems: • Improve the efficiency and sustainability of resources use in agriculture and food-processing industry in order to minimize biodiversity losses, climate change impacts and pollution generation; • Promote circular business models and value chains to maximize the economic value of material, energy and waste flows in food production and consumption, including valorisation of the biomass residues into bio fertilizers and bioproducts within other industrial sectors, while preventing food loss and food waste; • Minimize the carbon and water footprint of food production, processing and distribution systems by employing more sustainable and resilient food production practices, technologies and renewable energy sources and taking into account also the WEFE (Water Energy Food Ecosystems) nexus perspective; • Sensitize consumers through awareness raising and ecolabeling for food products to foster demand, acceptance and competitiveness of sustainable products and quality standards; • Revise regulatory frameworks and adopt appropriate fiscal measures, remove harmful subsides and mainstream economic incentives; build capacity of local financial institution to boost sustainable financing for SFS in the Mediterranean in order to support transformative, structural changes of food systems; • Strengthen skills and training across different actors of the value chain, creating communities of green entrepreneurs, foster innovative solutions in the agri-food sector; especially for women and youth; • Promote organic farming to protect biodiversity, minimize use of chemical fertilizers and enable carbon sequestration while contributing to the supply of sustainable and healthy food; • Value and promote local markets, shorten food value chains, promoting producer-to-consumer networks as well as food public procurement that promotes fair and sustainable food production.236240241242243244248249250• Strategic level: o Sustainable land and water management (SLWM) become strategic priorities for the Mediterranean. o Immediate multi-stakeholders and multi-sectors action to enhance resilience governance that sustains water and land resources and to achieve livelihoods and communities well-being. o Establish a regional platform to support SLWM, invest in north-south and south-south cooperation, knowledge exchange, best practices sharing and capacities building for all. o Use of costs/benefit analyses for implementing resilience activities. o Enhance entrepreneurship in innovative solutions for SLWM and improve investment environment for MSMSE, Micro, Small and Medium Size Enterprises, that de-risks the business of farming. o Define Standardized/harmonized indicators for monitoring of land and water degradation at region level. o Review policies at national/regional levels relevant to SFS transformation, including financial incentives. o Provide evidence of cost/benefit resilient solutions to advice investors/policy makers on sustainable choices on water, soil, markets, incentives, as current policies and markets incentives push for cereal mono-cropping, leading to food insecurity, imports and prices inflation. o Properly consider the correlation between environment governance schemes and appropriate technologies in the design of land and water management policies or interventions. o Mainstream WEFE Nexus approach in the national and regional LWM strategies, as in the sustainable growth planning processes. o Better understand WEFE within the same context of integrated ecosystems approach and systemic approach, to improve socio-economic-ecological systems response to climate change and maintain a satisfactory services delivery. o Harmonise farming strategies with values: tackle the ethical concerns on food production. o Highly consider small farmers concerns regarding the SFS: i) Need to access to financial solutions: innovative, equitable and sustainable ii) Better control the value chains to enhance the marketing potential of local products, iii) adopt encouraging pricing policies to produce sustainably while having reasonable benefits, iv) provide and apply relevant political support at on economic , private investment boosting or climate resilience solutions. o Apply Economic evaluation of food systems approaches and trade-offs: cost/benefit analysis help decision making to identify appropriate action on water/land management for food systems. o Highlight the role of agriculture in the human well-being, as well the potential of farmers in food production. • Operational level o Highlight the grassroots responses to climate change effects on land and water resources. o Strengthen diversified and combined farming systems to revive indigenous crops and diets. o Implement the circularity principle in the farming systems i.e. recycling of water and products. o Invest in technical solutions for productivity with less water i.e. grey water reuse, water harvest, etc especially in the Southern Mediterranean countries that are more fragile to climate hazards. o Scale up technologies and local knowledge to enhance SFS implementation and transformation. o Scale-up available cascade of tools, mechanisms and best practices at regional level. o Use of friendly and low-cost technology, that is available, relevant and context tailored, and that have benefits in more in one area of WEFE. o Farming systems need to allow to balance sustainable consumption with sustainable production and promote better relationship between urban and rural sectors.236238239243246247249250Consumer understanding of a sustainable diet is limited. Stakeholders need to raise consumer awareness on the value of the Mediterranean diet (MedD) as a sustainable diet, protecting it as cultural heritage, halting its erosion and harnessing its role in resilience. Any voluntary guidelines for a sustainable, healthy MedD need to be country-specific. Possible actions Country: •Study interactions between population groups and various food environments to identify facilitators and barriers for adopting a sustainable MedD. •Develop targeted MedD campaigns for diverse population groups. Messages should address prevailing food consumption patterns and country production, cultural identity, and aim to reduce less desirable eating habits and increase desirable ones. •Develop food-based dietary guidelines which are aligned with all MedD sustainability dimensions. Use them to guide actions along the production-consumption chain. Mediterranean region: •Develop a 3-year plan of action based on data-driven voluntary guidelines for a sustainable MedD to be piloted in select Mediterranean countries. •Organise regular conferences and produce a documentary on revitalisation of the MedD. Policies will need to be reviewed/introduced so that sustainable consumption and production are mainstreamed in Mediterranean food systems. Since food systems interface with different sectors, dialogue between policymakers for integrated policies and policy coherence is crucial. Possible actions Country: •Conduct a situational analysis sensitive to the political context as this impacts food systems policy priorities and implementation. •Develop structures for an integrated approach when reviewing/developing policy (e.g. involve agriculture, health, environment, trade, safety, education) due to potential synergies and trade-offs. •Organise for community engagement in policy drafting and implementation •Prioritise o Information and communication policies as these are central to the revitalisation of the MedD. o Education and training policies targeting different stakeholders (e.g. agriculture/fisheries, catering, mass/artisanal food producers) and age groups (e.g. children/youth as change agents) so that MedD adoption is facilitated based on desirability, accessibility etc. o Pricing policy to make a sustainable MedD affordable. o Regulatory measures on marketing in the agri-food and fisheries sectors. Improve transparency to foster the consumer trust needed for MedD adoption. Knowledge sharing and digital technology are crucial for innovation in the agri-food and fisheries sectors to promote and sustain the MedD. Bridging the gap between academia and the food industry is key. Possible actions •Set up platforms to promote collaboration between stakeholders: o Share research done in academic institutions (e.g. use government training or business incubation centres, co-operatives, farmer/fisher associations, online communities of practice) for food product innovation or marketing. o Organise transdisciplinary projects for tertiary students (e.g. sustainability, management, health, education) on real problems in the agri-food and fisheries sectors. o Offer opportunities for young people to become MedD innovators/entrepreneurs (e.g. contests, seed funding) o Conduct market research to reassure producers of the economic value of MedD revitalisation. o Establish country/regional food labelling or a quality seal for the Mediterranean agri-food and fisheries sectors, integrating sustainability dimensions as feasible. o Organise a travelling trade/consumer fair promoting MD236238239241243244246247248249250251• The UN New Urban Agenda (2016) recognizes the centrality of food security and nutrition in planning for sustainable cities. Over 200 cities of the world have signed the Milan Urban Food Policy pact, pledging to «develop sustainable food systems that are inclusive, resilient, safe and diverse». The FAO has developed a framework for the Urban Food Agenda, and the CFS has developed Voluntary Guidelines on Food Systems and Nutrition. • Several actions were proposed as potential game-changers to support food systems transformation in the Mediterranean: • Promote integrated urban/local food policies with a focus of territorial systems, considering the links between town and countryside, as a way to adopt a systemic approach. Examples include food procurement, school feeding, education programmes, food waste and circular economy, links with tourism, among others; policy support should also include actions to promote the inclusion of food systems in urban territorial planning in Mediterranean cities. • Support multi-stakeholder governance at local level, such as Food Policy Councils, food alliances or similar governance tools in Mediterranean cities to include all voices in the decision-making related to food in cities, as well as to facilitate alignment among different levels where food policy is developed and/or implemented. • Promote and support food systems networks in the Mediterranean, involving cities from all shores (Northern, Southern, Eastern). These may include networks of cities (e.g. possibly within existing networks, such as the MUFPP) and networks of practitioners (e.g. within existing platforms, such as the SFS-MED Platform). Such networks have a critical role not only to raise awareness and exchange experiences and knowledge, but also to push the change in policies, legislations and consumers perceptions. • Improve availability and quality of data and information on food systems at local level to inform the development of local policies, including through food systems assessments, mapping of food systems and stakeholders at local level in the Mediterranean, assessment of the impact of policies on sustainability dimensions (including nutrition), and others. • Promote knowledge sharing, in particular of innovative practices on citizen-driven food system transformation and other existing good practices and local experiences in leveraging the role of cities for more sustainable food systems. A first step could be to map and consolidate what is known already (including from traditional systems, policy, governance, technologies, etc.) within a knowledge platform on Mediterranean cities and local food systems. Another channel is organizing city-to-city exchanges and knowledge sharing events. • Opportunities include digitalisation, as a way to facilitate a change of organizational patterns between consumers and producers, e.g. supporting the efficiency of short food supply chains, and to give small farmers more power and access to diverse markets and information. • Ongoing processes, such as the EU Farm to Fork Strategy, the Food Systems Summit at global level, and the SFS-MED Platform at regional level provide an opportunity to open-up to other countries and to link up initiatives at municipal level to higher levels (regional, national, international) in order to facilitate the implementation of the above actions.236241243245246247248249250251• Youth and women constitute a huge resource as agent for change and the future of each country’s development. They are and can be a catalyst for positive change and a source of creativity and innovation, if an enabling environment is provided. • In the MENA region, the female labour force participation rate is about 20% - the lowest in the world. • There is a general need to invest in processes that boost gender equality, breaking silos training, building professionalization pathways and avoiding “itemising” youth and women empowerment, instead pushing for horizontal integration in Food Systems. In order to this, co-creation and co-design is key. Particularly, women need to be fully recognized as agents of change. • Innovative approaches, such as social economy based on social inclusion and right based agriculture are also their role to play in job creation for all. • Other risks of exclusion are brought by skill mismatch, which risks leaving behind youth whose skills are not responding to the labour market or are unable to create enterprises. There is therefore a need for fostering employability and entrepreneurship in the region using SFS as a lever (e.g. targeting food production for improving child nutrition). • Innovation and communication systems easily involve youth. ICT can be used for increasing information about agriculture through participatory systems. • We need to increase awareness of Food systems through all sectors, including social, climate change, food security, ITC for rural women, which are the majority in rural areas (60%). Awareness contributes also to shaping consumer demand, which in turn influences the economy. Pilot actions should also be considering approaches on a sub-region level. • We need to improve data gathering in rural area and also do a proper recognition of existing funding instruments. • There is a need to understand how to minimize trade-offs, e.g. in the case of innovation (see below). • Research and academia can contribute significantly more to development and a systemic effort should be done in order to explore how to ensure this connection. Additionally, most efforts are done on startups and established initiatives, while more should be done for investing in transition, from startup to stability. Research needs to be more connected to the field, and pilot actions can help on this regard. • Research bodies in earth and maritime sciences should integrate gender studies. At the moment this is insufficient, and this is important because trained students are tomorrow’s policymakers.236238239240241242243246248249250The group has reiterated the multi-faceted aspect of innovation, intended to be technological, organizational, social and ecological. The different dimensions have been highlighted, including frugal innovation and those experiences that enhance a stronger connection between farmers and consumers. Political and institutional stability is much needed in the region and it is considered a pre-condition for innovative ecosystems. Therefore, adequate support by relevant organizations is required, as well as more coherent and ambitious investments plans towards research and innovation. A first concrete action to be considered is an incentive for researchers to opt for innovation with specific rewards and recognition for their professional advancements. Too often, in fact, academia requires researchers to mainly focus on publications and theoretical knowledge disregarding applied research, with the consequence that oftentimes researchers do not engage in confronting challenge-based solutions, or market-oriented innovations, since these experiences would have a very limited impact for their professional career. Bridging the gap between University and Business might be beneficial in favouring an innovative ecosystem. An important legal framework and support concerning the protection of Intellectual Property is also considered useful in promoting innovation. The current mechanisms are perceived as inadequate and unfriendly for researchers and innovators in the region. To strengthen further innovation, a suggested action entails putting in place or strengthening existing financial mechanisms to de-risk the costs related to innovation. Specific insurance schemes or financial support for early stage innovation could be expanded and mainstreamed, thanks to the relevant public and private alliance. Considering the multi-dimension of innovation and the specificities of the Mediterranean area, it is worth emphasizing that specific profiles and expertise are required. To that end, it would be impactful to invest in education and learning activities meant to create those competences and professional figures, such as innovation brokers, that could facilitate the uptake of innovation, promote access to it and implement scaling-up tracks. Investing in those competences and profiles would enhance the transfer of knowledge from research centres to applied fields. In this perspective, in addition to innovation brokers and innovation managers as key figures to be valorised, a pivotal role is also attributed to those centres such as living labs, characterized by a multi-stakeholder, where a co-creation experience can take place, oftentimes with a specific challenge-based approach. The debate has also put together innovation and Mediterranean Diet. The latter is well aligned with the different dimensions of sustainability (economic, social, environmental) and it has a positive contribution in terms of health. Therefore, the valorisation of the Med diet can constitute a lever for innovation for the business sector, which is progressively called upon to adopt sustainable models. In that transition, innovation is a fundamental instrument.237No critical divergences emerged between participants’ views and opinions, although some potential areas of conflict/trade-off were identified: • Discussions on actions are driven by political concepts, preventing their translation into on-the-ground actions, and not shaped to real priorities and challenges specific to the Mediterranean context. • The challenge of the diversity of Mediterranean countries, the variety of their food cultures and systems, and how dietary patterns differ across dimensions (environmental, economic, socio-cultural, health) and countries emerged strongly. Devising a single, common label that addresses all sustainability dimensions was also acknowledged to be a challenge. • Decision-making processes were felt to not always be inclusive of all stakeholders, in particular the most vulnerable. For example, it was noted that while sustainable development is linked to innovation and there is a general need for new ideas, there are possible trade-offs in terms of social inclusion. We need to be vigilant in order to avoid that technology fosters exclusion in the most fragile parts of society. Women can lead on this process. Exchanges and peer to peer interactions were recognised as providing a way to bridge the skill gap in this regard. • How to overcome the limited interaction between SMEs and R&I Centres was debated. To manage this aspect, it was recognized that it would be useful to promote innovation-transfer pathways, co-creation experiences (e.g. living labs), knowledge-exchanges, and greater recognition of different professional development for researchers and academics.

2021-05-12 14:30:47204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/15145/203

5656322415552524151516271

The organization of the dialogue was characterized by the respect and application of all the principles of engagement. In fact, the main objective of this meeting between farmers and consumers was precisely action-oriented and people-centred in the spirit of the UN FSS. Farmers and consumers met under the banner of mutual respect and support for each other. Participants were invited to propose concrete and scalable solutions, orienting them through some guided questions. The expectation, in fact, was to understand what can be actively done to change the system and break the silos, building bridges between the two parties. By doing so, the foundation was laid for mutual and lasting trust with a shared desire to change the current food system.The premises of this dialogue were to promote inclusive and win-win solutions by adopting a holistic and systemic approach to understanding how to act in a complex system like the food system. In fact, farmers and consumers are the first and last ring in the food value chain and it is essential that they strengthen and reinforce their collaboration, fostering a systems approach to the value chain based on a fairer share of value all along. In doing so, therefore, a multi-stakeholder inclusivity was embraced and it was emphasized that everyone is called upon to play their part.It is important to ensure representativeness of all relevant categories. Also, it is good to consider that the list of registered participants reduces at the as some do not attend. Lastly, in order to cover all regions of the world - in case it is an international online event - it is recommended to organize multiple sessions in different time slots to allow the participation of representatives from different time zones.

Yes

234238239240241242244245246247249250251The Dialogue was focused on identifying connections and a spirit of collaboration between farmers and consumers on which to build an alliance, and exploring common priorities and how they intertwine. Participants were divided into 4 break up sessions, each discussing how cooperation between these two groups can help in the transition to a more sustainable and fair food system. Two rounds of break up sessions were organized. The first one under the following themes: 1) What do farmers and consumers need this summit to deliver? 2) How can farmers and consumers contribute to food systems transformation? 3) What can other stakeholders in the global food system do to help achieve these goals? 4) What can governments do to enable an environment where farmers and consumers can better co-operate? The second round of break up sessions focused on what should farmers and consumers expect from the summit in areas such as 1) Consumer information 2) Trade and supply chains 3) Food standards 4) Resilience to vulnerability At the end of this discussion, in the plenary session, strategies and visions were developed with respect to future steps that could be leveraged through the process.235238239240241242244245246247249250251The key point that clearly emerged during this Dialogue is the need expressed by both parties to fill the knowledge gap between farmers and consumers. The importance of strengthening the collaboration between the two actors was reiterated several times, so that they can understand the process behind the food they eat and appreciate its quality. This should apply both in short and in long food value chain. In fact, it was reiterated that both parties share the same interests: healthy and nutritious food produced in a way that protects the environment and biodiversity for future generations and respectful of safety standards. Direct selling in market places also solves many of the inefficiencies present in the current food system such as food waste and loss, unfair remuneration of farmers and the need to increase awareness and information among consumers. In this regard, one of the most burning issues raised by consumers was precisely that of receiving guarantees about the transparency and traceability of food products and this can be remedied through clear regulatory processes that can grant fair and transparent information to consumers, allowing free choices when buying food products.236238239240241242244245246247249250251CONSUMER INFORMATION Regarding this issue, the participants have expressed the desire to deliver, prior to the Food Systems Summit, a document that contains a series of points agreed upon by both parties involved and which lists best practices that regulate the production process. The hope is that this document (e.g. a shared manifesto) can be included the Summit outcome, as a special recommendation to the Governments. Specifically, it is desirable to identify the correct criteria and information for setting prices in order to avoid price fluctuations that harm both consumers and producers. There can often be an incorrect perception about the profitability obtained by producers and it is, therefore, important to find solutions that break down the existing boundaries between farmers and consumers..It is one of the key priority that brings farmers and consumers together at this Summit.236238239240241242244245246247249250251TRADE AND SUPPLY CHAIN According to the participants, the assumption is that producers and consumers present differences that must be taken into account when it comes to trading. In this regard, it is important to find a balance between the needs of both and to avoid the loss of traceability in trade. In fact, traceability also serves to increase consumer awareness and explain to them what are the impact on the environment, on the health, on their own well-being, and try to make the trade in the supply chain less harmful as possible and leaving no one behind.236238239240241242244245246247249250251FOOD STANDARD Participants expressed undisputed consensus regarding the need for clarity in the information provided to consumers. Although the existence of standards regarding safety or low environmental impact help to encourage a transition to healthier and more sustainable diets, it is not always appreciated by consumers. Sometimes, in fact, the existence of too many labels such as environmental, nutritional, and health claims can be misleading and confusing. In addition, it is worth noting that the existence of different legislative frameworks in different countries can be a barrier for producers to market their goods. Finally, it is desirable that the required standards are achievable and prevent the creation of a market dominated exclusively by large companies. At the same time, farmers need to be flexible and able to adapt to what consumers demand in terms of nutrient values.236238239240241242244245246247249250251RESILIENCE TO VULNERABILITIES In this group, what emerged with respect to resilience and recovery following the pandemic is the imperative of third-party support. Investments are needed, both public and private. All constituencies should be represented and find a voice in this Summit, even more so those who normally enjoy little visibility such as small farmers. In addition, the outcomes need to be reported at the national and regional level, so that what is established here is reflected and turned into action.237All panellists and participants agreed on the positions expressed and elaborated during this first dialogue. Although there was an emerging need to establish practices that can enhance trust between producers and consumers in the food systems, globally.

2021-05-12 14:57:01204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/14768/203

54543222132222231217172411

The organization of the dialogue was characterized by the respect and application of all the principles of engagement. In fact, the main objective of this meeting between farmers and consumers was precisely action-oriented and people-centred in the spirit of the UN FSS. Farmers and consumers met under the banner of mutual respect and support for each other. Participants were invited to propose concrete and scalable solutions, orienting them through some guided questions. The expectation, in fact, was to understand what can be actively done to change the system and break the silos, building bridges between the two parties. By doing so, the foundation was laid for mutual and lasting trust with a shared desire to change the current food system.The premises of this dialogue were to promote inclusive and win-win solutions by adopting a holistic and systemic approach to understanding how to act in a complex system like the food system. In fact, farmers and consumers are the first and last ring in the food value chain and it is essential that they strengthen and reinforce their collaboration, fostering a systems approach to the value chain based on a fairer share of value all along. In doing so, therefore, a multi-stakeholder inclusivity was embraced and it was emphasized that everyone is called upon to play their part.It is important to ensure representativeness of all relevant categories. Also, it is good to consider that the list of registered participants reduces at the as some do not attend. Lastly, in order to cover all regions of the world - in case it is an international online event - it is recommended to organize multiple sessions in different time slots to allow the participation of representatives from different time zones.

Yes

234238239240241242244245246247249250251The dialogue produced a rich and stimulating debate. Participants were excited to be able to engage with each other on certain burning issues that they normally have no chance to address. The opportunities for the two sides to meet are rare and this has inspired a high and active participation. The dialogue was divided into two parts. The first part dealt with broad and general issues, while the second part explored more specific topics. Participants were divided into 3 break up sessions, each discussing how cooperation between these two groups can help in the transition to a more sustainable and fair food system. Two rounds of break up sessions were organized. The first one under the following themes: 1) What do farmers and consumers need this summit to deliver? 2) How can farmers and consumers contribute to food systems transformation? 3) What can other stakeholders, including Governments, Private Sector, Civil Society and Science, in the global food system do to help achieve these goals? The second round of break up sessions focused on: What should farmers and consumers expect from the summit in areas such as 1) Consumer information 2) Trade and supply chain 3) Food standards At the end of this discussion, in the plenary session, strategies and visions were developed with respect to future steps that could be leveraged through the process.235238239240241242244245246247249250251The starting point of this dialogue is that farmers are consumers, but it is not always possible to say the opposite. For this reason, this Summit can help to connect them, possibly at a local level. The reason for supporting such a position lies in the complexity of food systems, which differ from region to region. The complexity of the food system also emerges with respect to its interconnection with other systems, such as health and educational system. In this regard, governments and policy makers play a key role. Dialogue participants emphasized the importance of promoting healthy food choices through regulations, government policies that really facilitate access to more affordable food, but always do it in a fair way. Above all, they focused on education about healthy, balanced diets beginning in early childhood through school-based programs. Children, in fact, are exposed to what is offered to them and the government has a responsibility to enable them to purchase nutritious and unprocessed food. A coherent legislative framework that supports farmers in the transition to more sustainable production is, therefore, crucial. Farmers need to be placed at the center of the food system as they are not only providing safe and nutritious food, but also providing a whole bunch of ecosystem services for which they are not rewarded. Education also proved to be an indispensable factor for the farmers themselves. It can help in the adoption of innovative techniques that contribute to protecting the environment and reducing the use of agrochemicals.236238239240241242244245246247249250251CONSUMER INFORMATION Most of the information consumers receive about their choices is provided through labeling. However, it would be desirable to encourage greater proximity between producers and consumers so that the flow of information is more direct and transparent. It is desirable that there be greater restrictions on healthy food and WHO standards, promotion of education in school and intervene on the lack of coordination between farmers and consumers maybe through direct contact and selling (local market). Consumers want to know the origin of products and not be misled by marketing and advertising (online or on television). Therefore, legislative action is needed to limit marketing restrictions, especially to children and control marketing about healthy food in packaging and in media channels.236238239240241242244245246247249250251TRADE AND SUPPLY CHAIN According to the participants, trade should be conceived as a tool, a resource within the food system used to achieve a fair balance between local and international consumption. It is important to limit food loss and waste during trade. In addition, what consumers really care about is the traceability of food (country of production and country of origin). In addition, it is essential to ensure inclusive trade agreements.236238239240241242244245246247249250251FOOD STANDARDS The importance of introducing global standards has been highlighted. Moreover, the introduction of voluntary standards in a particular agri-food sector is associated with high compliance costs for farmers and this may marginalize the poorest. On this point, it has been reported that food standards can be useful in empowering consumers to play an active role in choice and increase trust between farmers and consumers. However, clarity in standards is necessary to ensure proper awareness.237All panellists and participants agreed on the positions expressed and elaborated during this first dialogue. Although there was an emerging need to establish practices that can enhance trust between producers and consumers in the food systems, globally.

2021-05-12 14:58:02205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/11334/93

176928417441239233165350

The session was free to attend upon registration and the links to the webinar was circulated through social media and various networks, with the aim of attracting a wide-ranging audience, including agri-food companies, allied industry, academics, researchers and advisers. Members of the panel was asked to express their thoughts on how to reach sustainability in the agri-food sector and the panellists were able to highlight any relevant work they were involved in to ensure good awareness of current activity. Questions from the audience were gathered from the chat function within Zoom and directed towards the panellists by the chair. Main themes of the dialogue were: the adoption of new ways to preserve and strengthen local food cultures, the reduction of food waste, the recovery of surpluses for a sustainable and ethical use of food through new strategies aimed at mitigating the negative impact of food production on the environment, on biodiversity, on marine ecosystems, climate, water, human and animal health. The topics of discussion presented by the different working groups were: the good practices of Italian agri-food companies for sustainable food systems; innovation and food systems: coated food with technological silk to keep it longer and reduce food waste; losses, food waste and the Mediterranean diet.The session was organised to present positive examples of sustainable Italian companies’ commitments, share scientific research findings on improving agri-food products’ shelf life and to tell how losses, agri-food surpluses and domestic waste can be averted. Within the next months, two different groups of stakeholders will present (i) a shared paper on commitments of Italian agri-food companies for economic, social and environmental sustainability and (ii) a document about solutions on losses, agri-food surpluses and domestic waste. The dialogue also allowed the participants to share innovative ideas and to propose solutions capable of facilitating the transition towards more sustainable consumption models in the future with the collaboration of the main Italian players in order to make the Italian agri-food system more sustainable and resilient. Inclusiveness and openness as key elements for everyone; the journalist Alessandra Fabbretti of the DIRE agency, acted as an intermediary The ambition was to coordinate the Italian approach on the agri-food value chains sustainability, building on existing experiences and involving main stakeholders. The range of knowledge and expertise reflected the complexity of the dialogue. Moreover, the coordinators of the proposed documents already involved, during previous preparatory meetings, all the representatives of main Italian stakeholders’ associations, such as Confagricoltura, Coldiretti, Coop Italia, Federalimentare, etc., and the leading Italian companies. The ambition is that the session would be followed up in the next months by signing of a joint document to present the Italian position.Because in Italy there is a strong coordination and a shared vision about the sustainable food systems we want to achieve in the future, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Development Cooperation initially invited main stakeholders that progressively widened the audience network through their exchange of information and thanks to the social media coordination that captured different stakeholder interest, e.g. private companies. Moreover, the relevance of the involved speakers contributed to further widening the audience.

Yes

234238239240242243244245246247248249250251This National Dialogue, entitled "the culture of food in sustainable food systems”, was organised by the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation together with the Ministry of Agricultural and Forestry Policies. The dialogue aimed at collecting innovative ideas and solutions from main Italian stakeholders to contribute to enhancing the sustainability and resilience of the Italian food systems. The dialogue brought together high ministerial representatives: it was was opened by the Deputy Minister for International Cooperation, Marina Sereni and the Hon. Gian Marco Centinaio, Undersecretary of State at the Ministry of Agricultural, Food and Forestry Policies, and closed by the Director General for Development Cooperation, Ambassador Giorgio Marrapodi. A keynote speech was delivered by Professor Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University, about agri-food sustainability in Italy and worldwide. In addition, a panel of experts from across the agri-food value chain sustainability topic: - Angelo Riccaboni, University of Siena, coordinating the documents on companies’ commitment, - Benedetto Marelli, MIT, new technology for perishable food presevation; - Andrea Segrè, University of Bologna, coordinating the activity about solutions on loss and waste; - Marco Lucchini, Banco Alimentare, on Recovery of food surpluses and the reduction of wast; - Bettina Prato, IFAD, Champions’ Network Vice-Chair for Women and Gender issues It was also an opportunity to present the first results of the two working groups organized in view of the Summit on food systems. The discussion focused mainly on action track 2, therefore on proposals for national commitment in the adoption of agri-food systems that can embrace all issues relating to food, the importance of enhancing production, the diversity between territories and the historical and cultural food dimension, the fight against waste. Not only were good practices shared on the sustainability of production processes and consumption models but also innovative solutions on scientific research and proposals for governance models and interinstitutional dialogue and actions aimed at improving the Italian food system.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Main findings relate to a sustainable diet that should guarantee food security, promote healthy lifestyles, avoid food loss and waste, contribute to the reduction of environmental impacts and to the improvement of the well-being for current and future generations. 1) The good practices of Italian agri-food companies for sustainable food systems; Three elements were at the centre of attention: food understood as identity, union, conviviality, dialogue and tradition, the importance of the Mediterranean diet and safety and food accessibility. Traditional foods and dishes are traditional in nature, and may have a historic precedent in a national dish, regional cuisine or local cuisine. Some traditional foods have geographical indications and traditional specialities in the European Union designations: these standards serve to promote and protect names of quality agricultural products and food. Food connects people, and its preparation and consumption are activities that can bridge members of multiple generations and Italian companies are already engaging to protect these values and commit towards greater sustainability across the value chains. 2) Innovation and food systems: research and technology can help to preserve food, with the aim of extend the shelf life of agri-food products while guaranteeing food safety, reducing food waste.Food waste consist of 1/3 of the production. By recovering most of it, we can remain within a sustainable path without increasing food production. 3) Food losses, food waste and the Mediterranean diet: promoting knowledge of the values and principles that are at the roots of our food culture is our duty for future generations because this knowledge touches multiple aspects of sustainability, not only in regards to food in a strict sense, but also in regards to the whole food chain. Food loss and waste reduction can bring benefit to society as a whole by improving food security and nutrition, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and pressures on land and water resources, while increasing productivity and economic growth. It is important to note that often the most nutritious foods, by virtue of their high degree of perishability, are the most susceptible to high levels of losses of and waste. Italian companies are committing to reduce food loss and waste.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The first discussion held by prof Riccaboni concerned the contribution of companies to sustainability and the role of research and innovation. Three elements were at the center of attention: food understood as identity, union, conviviality, dialogue and tradition, the importance of the Mediterranean diet and safety and food accessibility. The Italian agro-food chain was then presented, whose companies are increasingly characterized by a high fragmentation, exports, high quality, biodiversity and territoriality. Not to be missed are the positive relationships that are created within the Italian supply chain and the initiatives regarding sustainability. There was a general invitation to enhance not only the Mediterranean diet, respecting the environmental, social and economic dimension but also good practices in terms of research and innovation with the contribution of the main Italian players. Finally, a document "United in food" was illustrated which in ten points sees the commitment of Italian companies towards greater sustainability in order to be able to demonstrate their willingness to contribute to the achievement of the 17 development goals sustainable and in promoting the Italian model at the UN Summit.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The second discussion topic was addressed by MIT professor Benedetto Marelli who illustrated the results of his research project being tested concerning the creation of a non-polluting biopolymer obtained from silk cocoons and used as a membrane to preserve food by reducing this way food waste. He then recalled the main objectives to ensure sustainability: the fight against obesity, the reduction of food waste and the strengthening of food security.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The last discussion topic was addressed by Prof. Segrè in collaboration with Prof. Pertot of the University of Trento and with Marco Lucchini of the Food Bank Foundation. The topics covered were: the reduction of food losses; the prevention of domestic waste; the promotion of sustainable diet and greater accessibility to it; the importance of research and development for the promotion of chemical synthesis products to ensure greater sustainability within Italian crops; the need for more policies and legislation nationally and internationally and training to ensure the recovery of surpluses for ethical purposes. All these points, intended as objectives, will converge into an Italian commitment document which is being drafted and which will be presented at the beginning of June during an upcoming independent dialogue.

2021-05-12 19:03:40204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/5278/192

37152238151311233642141313126

A guest list was drawn up that included individuals and organisations from throughout the food system; guests were specifically invited on the basis of their diverse areas of expertise. Attention was also paid to the geographical distribution of participants. The language preference of participants was considered, with one group being held in Welsh and a translator engaged so that the group could feed back in Welsh (one of the two official languages of Wales, English being the other). A small amount of preliminary information was sent to participants, including the Principles of Engagement, which were re-sent later with the joining instructions. They were referred to in both emails. Reminders of some of the Principles (the need to listen, i.e., be respectful, the need for urgency, complementing the work of others) were made during the introduction to the event, and re-enforced by the way the facilitators enabled the discussions.It was difficult to endorse a couple of aspects of the Principles, e.g., committing in advance to something where the “final outcomes” are unknown. However, certain specific aspects were reflected. Trained and experienced facilitators were engaged, thus ensuring that the principle of respect was adhered to. In addition, the Principles of Engagement were sent out twice to each participant. Complexity and stakeholder inclusivity were reflected in the varied guest list that was created, and this was further endorsed by the allocation of those participants who accepted into four discussion groups. While accepting that many participants have multiple roles within the food system, efforts were made to allocate people with similar roles to different groups. We complemented the work of others by making the Dialogue relevant to the situation in Wales by basing it on a piece of legislation that is unique to Wales, specifically the Act’s associated Wellbeing Goals. The building of trust was taken to mean trust between the participants within the Dialogue, and was achieved through a commitment to anonymity and the recruitment of trained and experienced facilitators able to create an open and safe atmosphere.

Yes

234238239240241242The major focus was exploring how the food and farming system in Wales could help citizens and the government to achieve the seven Wellbeing Goals enshrined in Welsh legislation and thus create a fairer and healthier society.235238239240241242Three overall conclusions were discussed by most or all of the groups. The Discussion topics presented in the following pages were not set in advance, but emerged during the Dialogue. Education – understood in its broadest sense and including a diversity of people. Firstly, there were calls for food literacy, including cookery skills, to be developed among young people. Secondly, it was felt that knowledge about the benefits of a healthy, nutrient-rich, local diet was needed in the wider population in order to encourage a transition towards it. The links between agricultural production systems (such as, organic or grass-fed) and nutrient density in food products also need to be clearer. Thirdly, there were calls for agricultural colleges and advisers to provide more and better training and advice on sustainable and healthy production systems. Finally, the capacity of the agricultural workforce to produce healthy, nutrient-dense, food products on ecologically and economically viable holdings would be increased by greater efforts to share examples of best practice and ideas, and the ability to gain access to research activities and results. Cooperation and cross-sector working in policy and practice – policymakers were called upon to ensure that agriculture, food and health policies are joined up. At the practical level, participants recognised that farmers, growers and food producers must cooperate more, but may need help to work in consortia in order to fulfil contracts, access funding and regain more local control of their food products. Localisation – Stronger local food systems were frequently (although not uncritically) called for. The need for support and innovation in encouraging local supply chains, from growing a greater diversity of crops and other products to developing better marketing strategies (partly through education, as above) was recognised. A major market is the public sector, and imaginative re-thinking of public procurement to enable links with local farms and other suppliers was felt to be needed.236238240241242243244249Food production systems for the future: Conversations are needed about how land is used. Specifically, farmers have been incentivized to move into beef and sheep, but most groups saw the value and, indeed, a need to move back into mixed farming and horticulture. Turning a small percentage of Wales’ land area over to horticulture could allow the country to become self-sufficient and even export fruit and vegetables. Historic farm documents and local older farmers could be consulted about what crops and practices formerly work on the land. These show what may be possible in practical terms, even down to field level. Most groups called for greater support for and much wider adoption of agroecology – even for it to become the ‘norm’ in agriculture. Even where the term agroecology was not used, there was a wish that policies be developed that encourage sustainable primary production. Who? Farmers and landowners have a vital role here, especially those already following these practices. Large landowners can encourage their tenants to implement certain practices such as carbon sequestration and carbon neutral / positive actions. Those already involved should act as exemplars for other farmers and landowners, demonstrating what is possible in food production through new effective, economically viable, ecological and enjoyable farming models. Farmers are also encouraged to participate in the ongoing debate over what works and what needs to change. Younger farmers are urged to talk to other young people and children about where food comes from and support teachers with the provision of appropriate resources / information. Agricultural colleges should make conservation and agroecology compulsory elements in all their agricultural courses. All participants are encouraged to keep speaking with government on behalf of farmers and farming, and also engage with research and evidence-gathering processes. All sectors involved with agriculture should come together to explore and test new farming models for access to land, increasing farmer engagement with sustainable methods of production and exploring incentives for these practices, such as “payment for results”. In addition, there was also a call for policy that directly and comprehensively incentivizes organic, regenerative and agroecological farming along the land sharing model (making the whole area of the farm good for biodiversity, not just the margins). There was an appeal for the polluter pays principle to be adhered to so that agricultural chemicals become much more expensive, and farmers are encouraged into less intensive methods while also making the cost of currently cheap imported feed much more expensive. This would then remove much agricultural pollution. Success: The landscape will look very different, with more agroforestry and green strips for biodiversity. There will be a lot more agroecological farming: it will be standard practice. Soil health will improve to support a greater diversity of crops and biodiversity, alongside other environmental benefits such as flood reduction and drought resilience. This will mean an increase in the volume of fruit and vegetables – of good nutritional quality – being grown, resulting in an increase in human health and well-being. There will be more farmers on smaller farms, and eating the food they produce. The messages around food and farming will create a positive vision of opportunity and hope.236238239240241242244249Encouraging local food systems: It was felt that the Covid pandemic had helped many people to appreciate local and sustainable food, and that there is now an opportunity to invest in developing and strengthening local food systems. There were several calls for actions to increase the development of local and short food supply chains. These included addressing training, access to land, encouraging enterprise among farmers and growers, support for producers to sell directly to the market, and those farmers receiving a fair price for producing quality goods for their local communities. The emphasis should be on encouraging the consumption of less processed food in order to protect human health, but where added value processes are wanted, they should take place closer to the market. Education and engagement with people were seen to be important, including information about the importance of local and seasonal food for human health, the environment, local economies and communities. Who? There are obvious roles for all along the food chain in the development of local systems, including the necessity for producers and sellers to produce and market good quality local goods. However, public procurement received the most attention. This is a large potential market, and one that has a huge effect on public health as it often directly affects the most vulnerable in society who are in schools, hospitals and care homes. Thus, while there were many calls for local public procurement to be policy, and for it to be included in all public sector organizations, one group commented that supply companies also have an important role in encouraging the public sector and other private companies to use local produce. Success: Everybody in Wales will habitually consume local seasonal products, including as many as possible that have been processed and packaged locally, as these have the best nutritional value. This will contribute to vibrant local communities where the emphasis on local systems engenders respect for each other and efforts to promote fairness and equality. More towns will have local food shops, but where supermarkets are the main food retailers, they will stock local food and healthier food choices. All food shops will stock healthier and local choices as standard - even garages. The market itself looks different, with plenty of new entrants, and movement away from supermarkets and imports. The measurement of local food in chains could be undertaken; for example, wholesalers should be able to provide data on the number of companies supplying them.236241242243249Valuing the food system and its workers It was widely felt that food, its cost of production and those that produce it are unvalued, particularly when wider costs such as the effects of a poor diet on health or pollution caused by intensive agriculture are included. With respect to the food system, the extent of food poverty was recognized, but somehow food prices need to better reflect the true costs of healthy and sustainably produced food. Over time, agroecological practices will reduce input costs and the resulting improved nutrition will reduce health care costs, but there will be a transitional period. It is also important to mitigate the power of supermarkets in directing what is grown - and how - and pricing. Ways of valuing the agricultural, horticultural and food industries and their workers were more widely discussed. The lack of new entrants into agriculture was noted and this is partly because they are widely seen as unattractive careers. For children, it was suggested that home economics in school is key because of negative perceptions of the food industry. They need to understand food and be shown that aspiring to become a farmer is possible. Similarly, it was noted that a former scheme to promote careers in the wider food industry had now ceased. One innovative suggestion was to allocate a certain amount of land per child or school. For those who do enter training schemes, there was concern about a lack of support when they leave. Efforts should be made to build the capacity and value of the agricultural workforce as a whole to attract talent and help the country through the proposed agroecological transition. As part of this, funding for appropriate food research should be available, and access to research results should be improved, especially research linking food consumption and production to health outcomes. Who? The re-framing of “food poverty” as “food and nutrition security” at all levels from individual to national by policymakers, thinkers and the media may help to allow a reconsideration of this challenging subject. Farming unions, landowners and schools need to work together to improve access to land for children and encourage them to consider agriculture or horticulture as a career. Schools and agricultural colleges, along with other further education colleges, also need to ensure that their students understand food, including how to cook: a sustainable food production education programme was suggested. Advisory organisations should support current and future farmers to develop the appropriate skillsets and mindsets to enable them to innovate and thrive. Success: The public will value and benefit from high-quality nutritious food and, importantly, increase its intake of nutrient dense fruit and vegetables, while farmers receive a fair price for their products. Lots of young people want to get into farming, having benefited from excellent educational and training opportunities, and feeling that they and other new entrants have a sustainable and strong future. Farmers feel empowered, are organized and collectively sell their products. A skilled and ecologically aware farming workforce will grow in recognition, increase in size and economic sustainability, and improve its capacity to lead the way in agroecology. Having built on work and volunteering opportunities, what had been seen initially as activism is now a genuine transformation of the community, and people want to be involved.236238239240241242245246249Thinking and working together All the groups had ideas that require the co-operation of various elements of the food and farming systems. Perhaps the call for a National Food Strategy sums this up best. Within the agri-food system, it is felt that agricultural policy stops at the farm gate and farmers are not encouraged to think beyond it: a greater level of co-operation is needed to address pollution and soil protection issues, among others. Similarly, regenerative agricultural initiatives should also include consideration of local communities. Public procurement policies could be linked to agricultural support schemes in order to get local, healthy, nutritious food into schools and hospitals, while producers should work together more to fulfil larger contracts. Some progress is being made on “circular economy” thinking and practice, but the system as a whole has not kept up with people’s ideas and plans. Linking food, agriculture and health policies was particularly discussed. One example is to set a new standard for food’s nutritional quality while building and communicating the evidence base for nutrition-supportive agricultural practices. At the same time, ‘food as medicine’ should be embedded within national public policy on health promotion. This involves formalising links between the food system and the health system to reduce highly prevalent non-communicable diet-related diseases and build consumer demand for high-quality, affordable food. Increased support for green prescribing is also called for, including in the management of certain chronic diseases. Who? It is recognized that all sectors and stakeholders have a role here. Farmers and growers must work together, both with similar producers and across sectors, while the wide variety of organizations and advisers from the farm, food and business sectors must also work to join these functions up. Of course, government and policymakers were seen as key enablers in linking these elements together, for example by using food policy as a way of addressing sustainability and health issues in Wales. The media has a role in telling the truth about food, its sources and benefits, particularly in ways that are relevant to Wales and Welsh consumers, although it was also recognized that everyone can contribute to public awareness and the national debate. The difficulties of cross-sectoral working are not underestimated, and it is suggested that Holistic Goal Setting is a useful tool to ensure that everyone is on board and has the same understanding; it is important to establish this first before moving to actions or projects. Success: We will have a healthier population, including better dental health, with fewer dietary related illnesses. Ideally raw food will be free in 2030, the farming of such food products being fully subsidised. Being charged for processed food only will also strongly contribute to a healthier diet. The First Minister will have set out a Welsh food system that relates to Wales’ unique legislation, while the farming support system will motivate and encourage farmers, who are able to adapt quickly and positively. Successful collaborations will proliferate. Streamlined objectives within policymaking and support for the food system will make it easier for collaborators to gain funding and enhance their ability to successfully work together.237238240241249250Very few areas of divergence appeared within the groups, but a number of issues were mentioned that occur regularly. It was noted that there is a difference in opinion and experience about the suitability of much of the country for different agricultural systems, specifically whether horticulture and cereal growing are viable activities for most of Wales, or whether livestock is really the only option. Despite strong support for local food supply systems, it was acknowledged that this may not always be the best alternative, either environmentally or for health. There are also examples of processed products associated with a locality or even the country, which are not necessarily made with local ingredients, but where the recipe itself has the association. Similarly, a company may be deemed to be “local” – employing local workers and participating in the community – but not contribute to the local food supply chain. There are also many misconceptions and flawed perceptions affecting many of the stakeholder institutions and groups, which can lead to problems with trust between elements of the food system and wider society. These include the perceived ability and willingness of some institutions, particularly local and national governments, to change policy and practice, sometimes leading to suspicions of “greenwash” and insincerity in their desire to change. Similarly, many farmers feel unfairly attacked or blamed for causing environmental and health problems. The need for a discussion about sustainable livestock farming is recognized, but sensitivity is urged. Also at a societal level, there is an issue about allowing new entrants access to land, while maintaining existing family farms. Relatedly, it is difficult to decide on the best way to support local communities, in terms of livelihoods, community spirit, culture, environment and health. This illustrates the final issue of balancing multiple considerations when making decisions. For example, farming is still seen as having to compromise for environment protection, while making the price of food reflect its true cost must be balanced with a lack of access to quality, nutritious food for many people. In addressing these, sensitivity to national context is important. Food poverty – or insecurity – should not excuse poor nutritional and agricultural standards.

2021-05-12 21:01:36204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/10770/203

3213115173101045

We invited different stakeholders around the world working with and on Indigenous Peoples food systems. This was a technical discussion including people from academia, international and local organisations, UN agencies and indigenous peoples.The group was diverse conveying people from 20 different organisations and specifically we aimed to include Indigenous Peoples who are constantly excluded from the conversations.We should plan the event with more time so we can engage more actors.

NoThe event was a technical discussion among the Global Hub on Indigenous Peoples Food Systems and the leadership team of AT2 and other relevant actors. In the first section, we had a round of introductions on the AT2 objectives, the UNFSS and the key role of Indigenous Peoples in the discussion. Second, the AT2 Chair presented the vision and objectives and the leaders of each of the three streams presented on the Game Changing Solutions proposed through a series of conversations and consultations with key stakeholders. Third, the Global Hub on Indigenous Peoples presented the Hub, a characterisation of Indigenous Peoples Food Systems and key contributions, recommendations, points of coincidence and divergence with the already Game Changing Solutions. In the fourth section, a discussion was opened to find points of convergence, clarifications, questions and key actions that can be taken and recommended for AT2 in relation to Indigenous Peoples Food Systems but also that can benefit the rest of the population. Finally, we moved into concrete actions and the way forward.

234239243244247249251The major focus was on the potential contribution of Indigenous Peoples' food systems to the AT2 and the game changing solutions that Indigenous Peoples can provide to achieve the objectives of the UNFSS while also contributing to SDGs such as not leaving anyone behind. The specific objectives of the technical discussion were to: 1. Share main findings from AT2 about shifting to healthy and sustainable consumption patterns. 2. Share the main findings from ongoing research on Indigenous Peoples’ food systems pertaining to the AT2 area of work. 3. Extract key recommendations from the White or Whipala paper that could become what AT2 calls game changing solutions to be included in the 2021 UNFSS submission/discussion. 4. Identify key areas of collaboration and policy convergence at global and regional levels between the AT2 goal areas of work and ongoing work under the Global-Hub institutions as well as other relevant stakeholders. 5 . “Leaving no one behind” and building more inclusive food systems using a human right based approach that effectively includes the voices of Indigenous Peoples, including different social groups such as women and youth.235239243244249251- Indigenous Peoples hold invaluable knowledge and practices of sustainable and healthy food systems. We must together look at solutions for how AT2 and the FSS can draw on Indigenous Peoples’ unique expertise, and how they can guide food systems transformation. - To ensure Indigenous Peoples’ contributions, we must first ensure a series of pre-conditions and a rights-based approach, with regards to: 1) protection of knowledge and languages 2) security and territorial rights. 3) interculturality in Indigenous Peoples’ education. - UNFSS must recognise the importance of indigenous languages for biodiversity preservation and continuation of Indigenous Peoples’ food systems, yet also political inclusiveness through producing information also in indigenous languages. - We must recognise the extra burden of climate change and COVID-19 on Indigenous Peoples placing them in increasingly vulnerable situations, yet avoid speaking of Indigenous Peoples as vulnerable per se. - While working to stop production chains which are harmful for the environment and global health, such as large-scale meat production, we must distinguish between actors responsible for the problem and Indigenous Peoples who are not part of the problem, rather the opposite. - We must continue the discussion on the main difference between food generation and food production to enhance our understanding of the replenishment of natural cycles, engender a paradigm shift, and include this in the labelling. - Indigenous Peoples’ political participation in the UNFSS cannot be limited to spiritual ceremonies, they must be given policy space and be reflected in the game changing solutions. Funding consultations for Indigenous Youth and Indigenous Women are also key steps on the way towards an inclusive Summit. - AT2 will look to host a follow up consultation with the Global Hub. There were proposals to consider Indigenous Peoples’ food systems as self-standing game changer.236239243247249Recommendations from Indigenous Peoples and the White Paper related to Action Track 2. a. Education. There is evidence that school feeding programs change tastes of indigenous youth away from Indigenous Peoples’ gastronomy, thus shrinking their food base. Many indigenous youth also have to leave their communities, thus eroding their cultures. We must ensure intercultural education methods and programs in indigenous languages, also within their territories. Government policies are needed to raise awareness on the importance of Indigenous Peoples’ food systems, the health benefits of Indigenous Peoples’ traditional diets and the need to limit consumption of ultra-processed foods. Food Systems Framework: This framework should be connected to the proposed national hubs, where Indigenous Peoples need to be present, also to ensure enhanced understanding of diversity of contexts. Such frameworks can be important tools to map the importance of Indigenous Peoples’ food systems in a country and create more evidence for Indigenous Peoples’ food systems. It is important to recognise Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge and worldviews in the development of these frameworks. b. Food policies must be intercultural. One good example is Canada, where the new food policy includes a stipulation that Indigenous Peoples’ views must be considered, and that all decisions regarding Indigenous Peoples must include them in the process. Interculturality must further be thought to policy makers and health professional working with food. Further, Canadian food based dietary guidelines have a section where Indigenous Peoples are encouraged to use their own food systems to meet the dietary guidelines. c. Labelling mechanisms should reflect the difference between food generation and food production, to reflect Indigenous Peoples’ lessons of sustainability, health, and resilience. Highlights from the discussion: a.Vulnerability. We must ensure that the discourse around vulnerability is changed. Indigenous Peoples are not vulnerable per se, they are placed in situations of vulnerability when their rights are not respected. b. Indigenous women hold key roles in Indigenous Peoples’ food systems, and are more often than men affected by unsustainable and unhealthy diets. Indigenous women and indigenous youth are key agents for food systems transformation, something which underscores the need to have an intersectional and intergenerational lens when addressing Indigenous Peoples’ issues. c. Rights-based approaches are crucial for the continuation of Indigenous Peoples’ food systems, as food depends on land. Indigenous Peoples are increasingly affected by cases of biopiracy, land grabbing and further interference with their territories. For Indigenous Peoples to contribute to the pathway towards more sustainable food systems, we must create safeguards and protection mechanisms for Indigenous Peoples’ rights. d. Key contributions from Indigenous Peoples’ food systems are among others the principles of seasonality, circularity, the close relationship and respect to nature, a broad food base, and healthy ecosystems for healthy food. e. Political participation. Indigenous Peoples must not only be invited to give ceremonial contributions, they must be given space at the decision-making table, and their perspectives must be reflected in the game changing solutions of the UN Food Systems Summit. The principle of Indigenous Peoples’ self-determination must be respected, meaning to include them in all policy discussions that affect their food systems either in positive or negative ways.237239243247249The main divergence was in relation to one topic: Indigenous Peoples food systems cannot be treated or understood as traditional food systems because Indigenous Peoples have a holistic and unique relationship with different elements of nature and food systems that are not present in the same way with traditional food systems. Moreover, in indigenous food systems, food is not a commodity and it can be either cultivated or gathered. Indigenous Peoples have learned to relate to their environments in such a complex way that food cannot be separated from of their livelihoods.

2021-05-14 06:08:36205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/12277/74

5034232252511115412111166

The multi-stakeholder engagement was enabled and food systems were discussed from the perspective of all stakeholders. As food systems are complex and covering all three main dimensions (economic, social, and environmental) systemic approach was used. Participants were given the opportunity to listen to each other. For example, private sector representatives had a discussion with Government, food producers with food consumers, etc. Key trends were identified which shall ensure sustainable food systems in Georgia. The latter is of utmost importance, especially today in the time of the Covid-19 Pandemic when poverty reduction and food security have become crucial.Due to the broad range of participants, all main aspects were reflected. Every participant was given an opportunity to express their opinions. After the meeting, when feedback was prepared, it has been shared with everyone in order to comment once again, if there was a need for clarification or some additional suggestions.

NoIn the introductory session, there were presentations of Convenor and Curator about the importance of the Summit. The importance of National Dialogue was explained and all three stages were discussed in detail. Besides, the concept of food systems was described and defined. By the end of the introductory session participants were divided into groups and in order to stimulate group discussion following questions were asked: The aim of the development of food systems in the country – results for 2030. Which elements of food systems should be improved – identification of priorities? Recommendations/actions. Who should be involved in the actions? Cooperation and partnership mechanisms. There was active participation from all participants. Group work presentations were done by facilitators and other group members also contributed to the discussion.

234In the first place importance of sustainable food, systems were highlighted. The discussion was conducted with alignment with SDGs and national strategies and priorities. The dialogue was focused on the exploration of food systems.235Involvement of the civil society sector in policy performance along with the public agencies is of utmost importance. It is vital to actively communicate with the direct stakeholders of the food systems such as producers, unions, associations, NGOs, scientific circles, donors, international organizations, higher educational and vocational institutions, local municipality representatives, and the civic sector in the municipalities. Public-Private Partnership (PPP) models, as well as the establishment of the Civil Committee, can be considered as one of the best mechanisms of cooperation. Collaboration at the level of Municipalities, for instance, with rural councils is worth noting as well.236238240243246248249251Identification of the advantages of the market-oriented competitive products as well as the development of their value-chains is vital for the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. The focus should also be made on the food security issues. It is important to create a sustainable environment where the small farmers and the households will contribute too. Special attention should be paid to the women farmers and the young producers. The access to funds, knowledge, and information shall be constantly improved and awareness-raising shall be ensured as well. Logistical issues need to be solved. It is necessary to support the diversification of the rural economic capacities as well as the development of agri-tourism and eco-tourism and efficient infrastructure (standards, labs, certification agencies) in the agri-food sector. The establishment of international standards in primary production is one of the challenges. Formation of producers’ associations, ensure the access to the market and availability of high-quality production equipment as well as building agri-food processing capacities shall be supported as much as possible. The formation of digital agri-food systems shall also be noted which is essential both for the development of local production and consumer protection. Development of infrastructure such as storage, hydro-melioration, mechanization, transport, energetics, roads, internet, etc. is also very important.236239246247249251Awareness-raising on food safety, healthy diet, and nutrition especially among the young generations is vital. Study of the factual information about nutrition in the country will allow to identify and take concrete actions. It is essential to enhance the risk assessment capacity of food safety (to improve risk assessment methodology), risk assessment and management, risk communication, and effective enforcement of food safety legislation as well as a systematic approach to the risk assessment process. Enhancement of lab capacities in the country is also essential. The focus should be made on elaboration and approval of hygiene rules for non-organized producers and households set out by law.236240244246248249Equal consideration of environmental and social-economic challenges is important for the sustainable development of the country. One of the key objectives of the country is to avoid negative impacts of social-economic activities on the environment, to minimize the current negative effects to the acceptable level, and to improve the state of the environment which in the long run will ensure a healthy environment for the future generations. Sustainable use of water, land, and forest resources as well as avoidance of soil, air, and water pollution is essential. It is crucial to encourage and promote climate-smart and energy-saving activities as well as to develop and perform climate change adaptation and mitigation action plans.236242244246247249251The pandemic showed the world the necessity and importance of the crisis management plan. It is vital to establish the supply management systems for food and other basic needs along with the effective communication mechanisms for the public and private sector in emergency situations which will secure the effective management of crisis and shocks. It is also important to manage the food waste and expired food and improve the respective processes as well as to support a circular economy.

2021-05-14 17:53:41204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/12769/8798170194

00

We consciously chose speakers committed to community development and principles of justice and equity in their work. We committed to multi-stakeholder inclusivity and highlighting the complexity of problems and the solutions. Our dialogues are globally diverse, bring together multiple stakeholders, have multi-faith representation, feature Indigenous voices throughout, and privilege the voices of front line communities.We consciously chose speakers committed to community development and principles of justice and equity in their work. We committed to multi-stakeholder inclusivity and highlighting the complexity of problems and the solutions. Our dialogues are globally diverse, bring together multiple stakeholders, have multi-faith representation, feature Indigenous voices throughout, and privilege the voices of front line communities.

NoWe created a hybrid dialogue that took the core elements of multi- stakeholder, global participants and thought provoking questions and scaled it down . Rather than focus on a single action track, we created dialogues for each of the 5 Action Tracks. The scaled down dialogues allowed for robust conversation amongst the participants. We designed them so that there would be opportunities for different points of view, points of divergence and of course emergence. We, in our way, hopefully created a platform for dialogue where people come from different traditions, religious belongings, countries, industries, and ultimately points of view for how the food system needs to transform. There was no disagreement that things must change but the why and how of that change differed for all of the participants. This we believe to be the most important part - that there is no single solution and that any solutions that are created must be culturally and geographically appropriate, and meet people as people rather than as commodities or numbers on a page. True change happens in a society due to shifts in values and worldview. The world is on a precipice of such a shift as more and more are becoming acutely aware of the climate crisis and the impacts of adding another 3 billion people by 2050. Tensions are rising and violence is happening but so too are efforts for collaboration and peacemaking. Our discussion groups are much smaller but we have created spaces for the grassroots to be in conversation with the grasstops. Change can only happen when we listen and learn from one another in spaces that are egalitarian and democratic so we have tried to create such a space in our dialogues.

234238239241244247249251The focus of this dialogue was an exploration of Action Track 1, Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all, building on the religious and moral values of faith traditions. Through the theme “Food Security, Access and Justice,” the dialogue explored the barriers faced by Black, Indigenous and People of Color (BIPOC) farmers in different parts of the world (with speakers from the United States, Kenya, South Africa, and India). Due to historical class disparities and colonization, the food industry and government have allowed unhealthy, ultra-processed foods to become ubiquitously available at the expense of traditional and indigenous foods that have been staples for hundreds and thousands of years. This has contributed to a global health crisis wherein food producers primarily struggle with having enough food to eat, while the principal consumers of that food struggle with overnutrition, NDCs, and other diet related health conditions not present until the introduction of processed foods. The ultra-processed foods have contributed to “nutritional trauma” as the spiritual values underlying indigenous and faith communities, of the holiness of food and the bodies of human beings, are disregarded. The commodification and corporatization of food and food systems has slowly winnowed down the diversity of foods that are eaten globally. Streamlined food and food systems are a burden to growing lands and have deleterious impacts on health overall Policy, governance, education, and finance systems need to shift so BIPOC and farmers from the Global South can innovate and create business models for themselves. BIPOC and traditional agriculture need to be uplifted through research and academia which influences policy. Models should also shift to empower women and girls. Development entities need to focus on supporting bioregionally specific foods and local farmers to produce robust, diverse, and healthy diet that are culturally appropriate.235238239240There is a need for those with power to support expansion of efforts that are intergenerational and build a connection between past, present and future, in order to restore a food system that honors ancestral wisdom and knowledge. Participants acknowledged that all faith traditions of goodwill can contribute to a more equitable and sustainable food system, and that people practicing these faith traditions should consider how these values are reflected in the food system. People of faith should do more than just pray that wars over food will end, but put faith into practice through action and believe that activism will improve government accountability to creating equitable food systems. Institutionalized religions such as the Catholic Church should have more collaboration with the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, which both have their offices within Rome, in order to create more sustainable, healthy and equitable food systems. Religious institutions which own real estate can also grow food on land, and more houses of worship can have culinary ministries. There was acknowledgement that change starts from within and we need values-based leadership, and that ministry work should align faith where the fork is. One participant quoted Rabbi Joshua Abraham Heschel: “Very few are guilty, but all are responsible.” There was also an acknowledgement that in a patriarchal society, in a world where women and girls are primarily the people growing and harvesting the food eaten by the majority of the world’s population, as well as the people who are hungry, stakeholders should embrace the divine feminine, providing more opportunities to women and girls as well as indigenous cultures. The faith community recognizes that truth must lie in the communities who are the most oppressed in order for powers and principalities to oppress them. Hunger and diet-related disease are almost always due to economic inequality, those in power need to be re-humanized and see all lives as valuable and that food is a human right. All human beings are holy, and food is holy. All people should have the right to safe, healthy and culturally appropriate food. Indigenous peoples are leading the way in food policy yet do not feel they have a seat at most decision making tables regarding food systems. The indigenous in North America previously had no term for unhealthy food; they had to coin a term which means “beyond food” to describe highly processed foods. They also use the acronym “CRAP” to describe “Carbonated, refined, artificial, reprocessed foods.” Community, faith and religious leaders should use the message of One Health to communicate that the health of the environment and the health of humanity are tied together. There is a need to acknowledge the historical connection between hierarchy and diet-related diseases. Diseases, once common only among the rich who had their servants prepare extravagant food for them, became common among the lower classes when foods high in sugar, salt and fat became more accessible for them. Decolonizing the food system to shift supply and demand towards traditional, nutritious foods would allow for BIPOC (and all) people to consume healthier diets. In order to do this, those with power and financial capital should invest in farmers and educational curricula should be decolonized. In addition, there should be improved access to nutritious foods (of local varieties) in communities that continue to experience the disparities caused by colonization and apartheid. There is a need to support more BIPOC and people from the Global South in research and academia, to contribute to the papers that make their way into policy proposals. Too many governments favor corporations, and there is too much reliance on pesticides and antibiotics in the food supply, while not enough traditional practices are supported. In particular there should be more agricultural research on traditional varieties. Innovations should emphasize ways of maintaining healthy traditional diets (vs highly processed versions of various traditional foods) and reducing the cooking footprint while relieving the burden on low-income communities. The longer the list of ingredients, the less that consumers know what’s in it. Consumers send market signals by what we purchase. There is a need for more consumer literacy and following guidance of the World Health Organization such as on salt content. There is a need to invest in low-cost solutions such as kitchen gardens and backyard gardens, as home gardens can supply non-staple foods. There is a need to produce food that supports regenerative growth and holistic biodiversity support. Equitable food production includes equity for plant and animal kingdoms236238239241243244247248249250251The focus of this dialogue was an exploration of Action Track 1, Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all, building on the religious and moral values of faith traditions. Through the theme “Food Security, Access and Justice,” the dialogue explored the barriers faced by Black, Indigenous and People of Color (BIPOC) farmers in different parts of the world (with speakers from the United States, Kenya, South Africa, and India). Due to historical class disparities and colonization, the food industry and government have allowed unhealthy, ultra-processed foods to become ubiquitously available at the expense of traditional and indigenous foods that have been staples for hundreds and thousands of years. This has contributed to a global health crisis wherein food producers primarily struggle with having enough food to eat, while the principal consumers of that food struggle with overnutrition. The ultra-processed foods have contributed to “nutritional trauma” as the spiritual values underlying indigenous and faith communities, of the holiness of food and the bodies of human beings, are disregarded. Policy, governance, education, and finance systems need to shift so BIPOC and farmers from the Global South can innovate and create business models for themselves. BIPOC and traditional agriculture need to be uplifted through research and academia which influences policy. Models should also shift to empower women and girls.237238239240242243244245246247248249250251The largest and most important point of divergence was between making the existing food system structure - which relies on agro-corporations, major farms, heavy reliance on animal proteins, and processed foods that require huge amounts of plastics, shipping, refrigeration, and preservatives - more just, accessible, and equitable versus relying more on localized modes of food production that put finance and development towards smaller farmers, Indigenous practices, and reclamation and rewilding of lands. What was recognized by all of the speakers was that there will need to be continued reliance on a global food system and processed foods to meet the demands of people, especially those living in parts of the world such as mountain communities and desert communities that cannot grow enough food to meet their needs. The question really came down to how much food can be grown by local farmers vs how much must be produced and shipped globally.

2021-05-15 00:34:19204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/8445/88

124315672256521811214436512433115

In the 21st century, global food systems face dual challenges of increasing food demand while competing for resources — such as land, water, and energy — that affect food supply. In context of climate change and unpredictable shocks, such as a global pandemic, the need for resiliency in global food systems has become more pressing than ever (Mahak Agrawal, Columbia University). The Good Food Institute stated that alternative protein industry raised $3.1 billion in investments in 2020—three times more than in any single year in the industry’s history. The same year that saw multiple social, environmental, and economic crises converge across the globe also saw record-breaking investments in alt proteins, which, not coincidentally, provide solutions to some of our most serious challenges—from climate change to global hunger. Hence it is important to explore "Future Food" with "Traditional Food "as the Basis of Future Food Development. Indonesia is an archipelago with 17,000 islands, over 600 ethnic groups and 269 million people. The Independent Dialogue is one session in a 3-day Youth Leadership Camp for Climate Crisis (YLCCC) focusing on Food Systems. Participants came from all over Indonesia where we have 3 time zones. Topics covered at YLCCC provided information as the basis for the Independent Dialogue, including the climate crisis and its solutions, carbon foot print, farming and agricultural practices for selected commodities, climate smart eating, leadership and communications and youth activities. At the Dialogue Session we presented the Summit principles and objectives, followed by trigger speakers talking about the concept and examples of future food, including Indonesia's context. Participants then continued with breakout rooms for discussionsACT WITH URGENCY: We informed participants that the Dialogue provides input to Summit. Also that Mr. Guterres, the UNSG stated that food is a common thread that connects all 17 SDGs (to be achieved in 2030). COMMIT TO THE SUMMIT: We discussed the process of the Summit, including Action Tracks, and the three dialogues (global, member states, independent). BE RESPECTFUL: We look forwad to the opportunity of future food, while appreciating traditional foods, and identied aspects of health, environment, livelihood, and cultures. RECOGNIZE COMPLEXITY: We provided sessions prior to the independent dialogue, that will help participants understand the complexity EMBRACE MULTI-STAKEHOLDER: Our participants are those showing interests in the food systems representing the variety of professions and locations. We also have speakers that explained the international context of future food. COMPLEMENT THE WORK OF OTHERS: In addition to the sessions prior to the dialogue, participants refer to previous works supporting their opinions. BUILD TRUST:. We discussed the transparency of the summit process and information platforms, including an opportunity to be Food Systems Heroes, showing that the process is for all to be involved.It is important to involve local, national, regional and international resource persons. Dialogues have to be prepared beforehand, preferably through PRE-SESSIONS of related topics with potential participants, as the process is quite complex for those who are not used to the system. This is important as the Food Systems Summit is a People's Summit. We expect people from all walks of life will participate.Through pre-sessions participants will understand the administrative process as well as technical information related to the Summit and they then can make informed opinions. It is also important to map the food ecosystems related to the topic of the dialogue, so that convenors can invite resource persons to support the dialogue. We would also suggest to open communication with participants even after the dialogue is over so as to have more insights from participants

Yes

234239244248250251The focus of our Independent Dialogue encompass: 1. Understanding the concept of Future Food 2. Recognizing the agricultural, food and culinary traditions of Indonesia 3. Identifying Future Food Systems options for Indonesia that support Sustainable Consumption Patterns235239244246248249Nearly 800 million people go hungry every day around the world, more than 2 billion lack the nutrients required for a healthy life, and one third of the global population is expected to be overweight or obese by 2030, according to the Global Panel on Agriculture and Food Systems for Nutrition. The global food systems is facing dual challenges of increasing food demand while competing for resources — such as land, water, and energy — that affect food supply. This independent dialogue proved that varieties of traditional foods (from production to consumption) can be the inspiration and the basis for future food. Examples in the dialogue covered carbohydrates, proteins, fruits and vegetables in traditional food. Societies will be more open to innovation with practices and ingredients that people already familiar with.236239244248251Food production activities / practices, culinary traditions and types of food in certain areas (urban or rural), both traditional and modern. Examples: Traditional foods that will be prospective to become Indonesia Future Food are those that use forgotten food commodities but has a good taste if processed properly and has good nutritional value, namely local food based on sago, cassava, sweet potato. , soybeans that can be processed into various elegant preparations such as pastry, ice cream, to steak. Bir Pletok is a traditional drink originally from Old Jakarta (Betawi) made from ginger, nutmeg, lemongrass, and sappanwood. It can be rebranded into a drink that can enter cafes and youth's lifestyle as a healthy drink without leaving Betawi elements. Sago palm (Metroxylon sago) is a type of carbohydrates with environmental and health benefits. It can be part of the solution of various crises, such as the climate crisis and the food crisis. Unfortunately this non-rice food is currently not being fully utilized. This plant can grow in underutilized wetlands and peat swamps peat where other food crops cannot grow economically. Sago has high yield edible starch (approx. 150–300 kg dry starch per plant), while various parts of the tree can be used as roofing material, animal feed, production of sago worms, woven mats and baskets, which can contribute to national and household food security as well increase family income and job creation in rural areas.236238239244248251The practices of the food system, from upstream to downstream, and types of food that have the potential to become future food. Examples: Sago has a great potential to become future food. Most parts of the plant can be used thoroughly. Starting from sago starch, sago waste, to the leaves. Tlhe eaves can be used as food packaging. Sago can be used as main meal (carbs) or as a snack. Sago waste can be made into fertilizer and animal food. Sego Cawuk is a traditional food from Banyuwangi , East Java that has the potential to become future food in Indonesia and globally. It has high nutritional contents because it consists of various vegetables and side dishes such as gecok ( a mixture of grated coconut and grilled corn kernels) which can be added with eggs or fish with clover and lemongrass sauce. In Papua, there are two staple foods, namely wheat (pokem) and mangrove-like plants. Pokem is similar to rice, processed by pounding, until the yields become smooth. The skins are removed and pokem can be cooked directly or combined with rice or sago. Meanwhile, the plant similar kind of mangrove is usually taken by scratching the outside then sliced thinly and then soaked for 3-4 days. Then it is dried under the sun, pounded, and then mixed with coconut. This type of mangrove can be made into juice, although not many people know about this innovation. This method of processing can be a movement to encourage the planting of edible trees so that the results can be used as new products while establishing partnerships with other stakeholders for the process of using them.236238239246248249Stakeholders and collaborations needed to develop the Future Food Systems concept in Indonesia. Examples: The first step that must be taken to be able to develop future food is collaboration with parties who are closest to us and can have an impact. For example, by building collaboration with students first because they can be allies in creating movements and enhanced education about local food as the basis for future food, around which academics can also be involved so that the action will be more credible. The second step is involving business actors, then entering the driving force such as startups and volunteers. The legal realm might be possible if there are collaborations with the government to form a new action or policy for a wider audience. Pentahelix collaboration to develop future food is necessary, with the following parties 1. Innovators (usually in universities and research institutions) 2. Policy makers 3. Industrial Sector When there is innovation, there must be production 4. Business Sector For marketing and sales 5. Society Without community participation, it will not be complete. Because the community is the party who best knows the potential of their area.236239244248249Examples of future food (which comes from local food ingredients / traditional Indonesian menus that you think of creatively, innovatively, and prospectively). In West Java, precisely near the Lembang area, the majority of farmers are mushroom farmers. Many say that mushrooms are superfood and future food because they are considered more environmentally friendly and quite easy to cultivate. With a high protein content, mushrooms are thought to replace the role of meat in meeting our nutritional needs. In addition, in some research, mushrooms have been developed into environmentally friendly materials such as imitation leather for fashion or building materials. If the cultivation of this fungi is more developed, the carbon footprint generated from the livestock industry will be reduced. The potential in Bandung City. also in West Java, to develop mushrooms is higher, given the trend of coffee shops is increasing rapidly and we can use the coffee grounds to become a more environmentally friendly mushroom growing medium. Lemang is a typical glutinous rice dish roasted in bamboo tubes. It has sticky texture and can be eaten with other side dishes such as rendang (caramelized beef curry), rich jam, and durian and can generally be enjoyed by almost all ages because it's not hard and easy to carry anywhere. Dishes created can be Lemang Dessert Box and Lemang-based pastry, or Baked Salmon Lemang. Megono, a typical food from Pekalongan, Central Java, is made from jackfruit, shredded coconut, torch ginger, bay leaves and other herbs and spices. The price is cheap and suitable for breakfast, lunch, and dinner menus. Usually it is cooked using firewood so the production is still traditional. The process from upstream to downstream is very sustainable because traditional food packaging uses banana leaves. So it does not pollute the environment. Future food should return to the past, for example by using baskets for containers. Instead of using plastic, the use of baskets is more natural and environmental friendly.237239248251Indonesia is such a large country, there are so many options to choose from in terms of processes and products, and potential resources to support the Summit's Objectives. Therefore it is more of varieties of options in developing future food based on traditional foods rather than divergence

2021-05-15 10:19:16204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/5793/135

23312496131567757103130315133155381052053027103510305036525

Before, during and after the Dialogue, we have paid particular attention to the urgency, the need and inclusion of a vast majority in the Food Systems discourse. First, we ensured to run our dialogue early in the year as a build up to the main Summit event in September. The reason for this is to have ample time to reconvene for more sessions to follow up on the highlights of the first Dialogue session. As it stands, we have been able to pique the curiosity of participants and stakeholders. Secondly, while we have endeavored to make of Dialogue focused on the Action Track 1 (safe and nutritious food for all), we have not shied away from other aspects of the Food Systems action tracks that may directly or indirectly affect the nation's access to safe and nutritious food all-season long. In our rigorous attempt to ensure stakeholder diversity, we have involved experts and accepted participants from different works of life. From our like list, we have lawyers, NGOs, entrepreneurs, individuals from academia and research, indigenous people and a host of others too numerous to mention. In addition to this, we have also done well to incorporate gender and cultural diversity in our panel board. This, in our opinion is an important aspect of enhancing the discussion spectrum. Ahead of the Dialogue session, we had also endeavored to intimate our panel members about key goals of the Dialogue vis-à-vis the 2030 UN SDGs with particular attention to the 2020 Global Hunger Index (GHI) report on Nigeria which classifies hunger in Nigeria as being serious (at 29.2 GHI score) with a GHI ranking of 98 out of 107 countries assessed. The idea was to drive the discussion in a solution-oriented manner and to foster actionable components.As mentioned in our previous response, both panelists and participants had been kept abreast of the criticality of the topic of discussion. So, every person had come with the sense of concern, involvement and a determination to proffer solutions. In realizing this, as conveners and moderators the dialogue, we were sure to tap into the core areas of expertise each panel member to stimulate the discussion and invoke different viewpoints. For instance, female panel members were asked to contribute to discussions about diversity and marginalization of the female gender in participation in the food systems chain in Nigeria. The panel was also selected to reflect the principles of the Dialogue. For example, we had the Founder of Lagos Food Bank Initiative, a Lecturer/Researcher from the Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, University of Ilorin, a Country representative of an International youth organization (Young Professionals for Agricultural Development - YPARD), an agri-food business entrepreneur, a young farmer and a food security advocate all represented on the panel.Yes. The Principles of Engagement are a solemn compilation of keynote features to tap from and inculcate in any dialogue. They shape one's reasoning and outlook to the food systems ecosystem. They can qualify as a starting point for the things to look out for while recruiting a panel or targeting a focus group for the dialogue. Quite frankly, one would barely get by, by not enshrining the principles encoded therein in the planning, implementation and subsequent follow up on the food systems' dialogues.

Yes

234238244246248249251Our dialogue was focused on the exploration of Action Track 1. However, as earlier hinted, since our participants and panelists have a wide range of expertise, the discussion did manage to cover several aspects of food systems. There were mentions of short-term and long-term availability of food, climate change, improving agricultural curriculum and making it attractive to students, food storage, public-private partnerships, subsistence and/or family farming, policy improvement, youth participation and active engagement of local stakeholders.235238239240241242244245246248249250251What has stuck out for us during the course of the dialogue is the need for more collaborations among Youth-led organizations and initiatives. All the identifiable call to actions are highlighted below: 1. Bridging the Gender Gap that Exists in the Nigeria Food Systems chain 2. Government Intervention Through Policy Formulations and Implementation 3. Reduction of Food Waste and Fighting Food Scarcity 4. Collaboration between different stakeholders 5. Capacity Building and Making Agriculture Attractive for University students 6. Educating and Training the Public on how to access inexpensive, quality, and healthy food. 7. Investment in Storage Facilities A culmination of the dialogue was also the interest of the panelists and participants to initiate a social media movement to spark the food systems dialogue across all frontiers including healthy foods and sustainable consumption, capacity building for youths, empowering women and small-scale farmers in sustainable and climate-smart agriculture.2362412511. Bridging the Gender Gap that Exists in the Nigeria Food Systems chain The gender gap that exists in several areas of the society also prevails in the agricultural sector. And although, women and children are most impacted by the devasting effects of an ineffective food system, they are also most marginalized when it comes to participation. There is a growing need to bring on board all the hands we can get and especially, to benefit from the pool of diversity that we have at our disposal. There is a standing hypothesis that since women are natural caregivers, they may be in a better position to drive the production of nourishing foods for their wards. For instance, in the competitive market of accessing loans for starting an agricultural outfit or to scale-up an existing field, women are not so favored as their male counterparts. This is in addition to other challenges that make it difficult for the food system to thrive e.g., access to quality seeds or machinery.2362382392412422432442452462472492. Government Intervention Through Policy Formulations and Implementation This is an important aspect of any country or region’s food system. The regulatory framework in Nigeria and most parts of the world is either ineffective or deliberately set out to favor only the elite class of the societies. While in fact, the large portion of entities that practice agriculture. On another end, law makers and regulators that are tasked with the responsibility of making policies bothering should endeavor to work together with the concerned farmers. It is a known fact that sometimes, policies designed in the chambers and offices do not translate well in practice. For this reason, it is important to bring the discussion on what policies and stipulations work for the farmers to the local frontier – either to farmers or even administrators of local municipalities.2362382392402422442472483. Reduction of Food Waste and Fighting Food Scarcity Food waste is a major concern for many nations in the world. Even in developed countries, they must contend with huge wastages due to inefficient production, distribution, storage and consumption of foods. As far back as 1967, food banks have been working towards helping to feed the less privileged by collecting overproduction excesses and close-to-expiry foods for redistribution to poor communities. It is a similar strategy that is being adopted by the Lagos Food Bank Initiative that now operates in two Nigerian states (Lagos and Ogun). The Lagos Food Initiative has also founded a family farming venture that helps families setup small scale subsistence farming that can avail them immediate food and can be scaled for selling to others within their communities. This program also facilities getting access to quality seeds for high yield cultivation and harvesting with the aim that it will enable families plan their own food scheme and build a resilient food system. In the same vein, Mr. Eric Nyikwgh believes that hidden hunger (which is tantamount to undernourished foods among the upper low-income class) is a form of food scarcity that needs to be tackled.2362382402422442472502514. Collaboration between different stakeholders Favored by Mr. Azeez Salawu and Mr. Eric Nyikwgh, collaborations within and without the country is highly suggested. The local representatives will play an active role in this key point. Young Professional for Agricultural Development (YPARD Nigeria) currently has reach in 16 states across Nigeria and are actively engaged working with the local representatives. Private-public partnerships are being encouraged to build a formidable food system. It has begun with dialogues like the UN Food Systems Summit by well-meaning citizens of the world and it is expected to challenge the status quo. These collaborations will foster a consolidated collection of ideas from academia, research institutions, government apparatuses, investors, financial institutions, and middlemen and that will be especially useful for expediting growth in our food system in Nigeria. There should be efforts driven towards scaling up local production to regional, national, and international terrains. On the long term, this will ease the importation burden that seats on our head as a nation.2362382402412492502515. Capacity Building and Making Agriculture Attractive for University students Many agriculture students and graduates are not equipped enough with the requisite skills that can make them deal with growing challenges in the food sector. They are either trained during their studies in archaic methods or fed with inadequate information to be useful for anything tangible in practice. These kinds of capacity building can be achieved by inculcating more hands-on and industrial fieldwork sabbaticals for students. According to information gathered from Mrs. Waliyat Oloyede, who is lecturer at the Faculty of Agriculture, University of Ilorin, there is already an initiative in place where students carry out agricultural activities on school owned lands. It is perhaps, a reason students do not find agriculture as interesting because they see it as academic exercise rather than as an asset for long term food security within the nation. On another end, we need to showcase agriculture in the light of profitability when done correctly. The current narrative suggests that farming is only meant for low-income peasant farmers. One Mr. Udegbunam Damian Onuora wrote, “There is need for change in curriculum in Agriculture faculty at the moment to graduate more competent agricultural practitioners”. Consequently, we need a more robust industrial and expert influence in helping to expand the horizons of the students.2362382392412432472506. Educating and Training the Public on how to access inexpensive, quality, and healthy food. A popular belief is the nutritious and healthy food is expensive. Mrs. Amidat Adigun, CEO of Lo’meedar Fresh pointed out that as an attempt to correct this erroneous belief, there business has been empowering women in the society to opt for healthier foods for themselves and their children thereby, growing a healthier generation. Furthermore, we should encourage alternative foods that would have fewer negative effects on the environment as pointed by Mr. Oluwatosin Ogunshola of IYS Nigeria referring to one “Plant-based protein inclusion in diet is potent to reduce Meat Consumption - a key greenhouse gas emitter” by Food@COP and 50by40.2362382422452482497. Investment in Storage Facilities Like the proverbial handicapped man carrying a load on his head unstably where we focus on the badly sitting load and not the deformation with his legs that made his posture the way it is, we do not pay attention to the pivotal influence that having proper storage infrastructure would have on reducing food waste and ensuring a reliable and steady availability of food. With efficient storage, farm produce from long distance communities and international frontiers can be housed for longer periods of time for year-round access to same. This will ease the strain on the logistical pipeline and streamline the food chain supply process. There seems to be a potential business opportunity in this regard.237240242244246247248249251The issue of herders' and farmers' clashes in Nigeria has created a lot of tension within the nation bringing to bear the realities of ethno-religious disparity alongside the fragility of our food systems. The panelists and participants had differing opinions on this with no one-size-fit all solution to arrest the situation. Some opinions bothered on the government providing ranching facilities for herders while others leaned towards tackling the problem from a policy point of view and taking more bolder climate actions.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Report-on-Nigeria-UN-Food-Systems-Summit-Youth-Dialogue-2021.pdfhttps://africa.ypard.net/2021-05-11/ensuring-access-safe-and-nutritious-food-all

2021-05-15 16:09:11205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/8427/84

39580000011835022813

The Second National Dialogue was convened through the country's existing institutional platform: The Interinstitutional Technical Committee for Food and Nutritional Security (COTISAN), a space for consultation and dialogue with the participation of representatives of the government, international cooperation, the National Congress, academia, civil society, NGOs, and private enterprise. This event was joined by other groups such as the Association of Supermarkets of Honduras, the Association of Rice Producers, the National Water Council, and the National Association of Poultry Farmers of Honduras, thus ensuring the participation of various stakeholders linked to food systems in Honduras. Prior to the event, the objectives of this first phase of the Dialogue were socialized; including the agenda of the event and a small methodological note in which general aspects of the Summit and the Dialogues were included. Expectations from the articulated joint work were also socialized, coordinated to establish a strong commitment that allows us to build an Integral Food System, strengthen and develop the potential we have and close those inequity gaps that are present in our population. The Coordinating Secretary General of Government made a call, emphasizing the following principles promoted by the Summit: Act with urgency, Commit to the Summit, Recognize complexity and Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivityAct with urgency: Carlos Madero, Coordinating Secretary General of Government, stated that 2020 was a critical year, with 3 emergencies that the country had to face; therefore, the actors must act urgently and work on aspects related to food systems. Commit to the Summit: He stated that the replication of these dialogue initiatives and the Food Systems Summit become a growth opportunity for the country. Recognize complexity: It is no longer just a matter of transforming food systems, but of guiding their recovery from the crisis so that they can improve and become more resilient and effective than what they were before. Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity: The Coordinating Secretary General of Government pointed out that there are many success stories and that when cooperation and other development actors get involved, positive results can be seen. He recalled that the dry corridor is one of those cases, which has yielded results and has been resilient to the effects of climate, for example. He emphasized that Honduras has already experience in these initiatives and that these collaboration mechanisms impact populations. Build Trust: The development of the dialogues is being carried out through the National Food and Nutritional Security System of Honduras, with COTISAN (technical space) and CONASAN (political space) being the spaces where the different stages of the dialogues will continue to be carried out. Doing it this way has generated confidence in the other actors that have been joining in.

Yes

234241242243244245246247248249250251The Second National Dialogue to transform the Food System in Honduras had two objectives: 1) To identify actions and discuss proposals towards a sustainable food system in Honduras based on the analysis of the prioritized pathways, and 2) To determine how best to participate in and contribute to the Summit process. The dialogue focused on the analysis of action pathways 4: Promote equitable livelihoods, and pathway 5: Build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks, and stresses. Following the methodology of the Manual on Member State Dialogues, generative questions were formulated. The first block of questions included aspects related to inequalities in the food system in Honduras, starting from the following premise: Promoting equitable livelihoods implies eliminating poverty by promoting full and productive employment and decent work for all actors in the food value chain, reducing risks for the poorest, fostering entrepreneurship and addressing inequalities in access to resources and distribution of value. Reducing inequalities will improve resilience through social protection and seek to ensure that food systems "leave no one behind". The generative questions were: To reduce inequalities in the system: 1. what actions can we take in the next three years to improve the incomes and livelihoods of those who depend on the food system for their livelihoods (farmers, employees and MSMEs in the agriculture, food processing and associated sectors)?, 2. What actions can we take in the next three years to ensure that all socioeconomic strata and social groups have access to nutritious food, 3. What actions can we take in the next three years to guarantee access to food distribution points that offer quality food at affordable prices for the entire population, particularly different vulnerable groups? The second block of questions related to Resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks, and stresses was based on the following premise: Building resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks, and stresses to ensure the uninterrupted functionality of sustainable food systems in areas prone to conflict, natural disasters, or other types of social, economic, environmental or health shocks or stressors. Building resilience seeks to protect food supplies from the effects of pandemics and ensure that all people in a food system are empowered to prepare for, withstand and recover from instability. Strengthening resilience in food systems seeks to help people participate in food systems that, despite shocks and disruptors, provide food security, nutrition, and equitable livelihoods for all. The generating questions were: To strengthen the resilience of our food system: 1. What actions can we take in the next three years to strengthen the resilience of our food system in all its components in the face of extreme events that disrupt food production, distribution and/or consumption in the country 2. What actions can we take in the next three years to become more resilient in the face of climatic events such as hurricanes or droughts? 3. What actions can we take in the next three years to become more resilient to events such as the COVID-19 pandemic or social conflicts? 4. What actions can we take in the next three years to strengthen the resilience of the system on the production side? In food distribution? In processing? In consumer access routes?235241242One of the conclusions expressed by the Ambassador of Honduras to Italy and Representative to FAO, IFAD, and WFP in his presentation during the protocol ceremony is that thanks to the Summit, the world will become aware that we must all work together to transform the way we produce, transform, and consume food. It is a Summit of solutions that will require all of us to take action to reshape the world's food systems. Guided by five Action Tracks, the Summit will bring together key players from the worlds of science, business, politics, health care, and academia, as well as farmers, indigenous peoples, youth organizations, consumer groups, environmental activists, and other key stakeholders. Before, during, and after the Summit, these actors will work together to bring about tangible, positive changes in the world's food systems. We need to be serious about healthy and sustainable food systems through aligned, evidence-based communication and policies," which should lead us at the summit to address the urgent need to combat all forms of malnutrition and environmental degradation. At the same time, as citizens, we must adopt healthier and more sustainable behaviors, increasing confidence in science. Looking ahead to the 2021 Food Systems Summit later this year, the ongoing Dialogues mark a crucial step in shaping the pathways for progress on the UN's 17 Sustainable Development Goals and should lead us to equitable and sustainable food systems by 2030. The 2030 Agenda stresses that there is no peace without sustainable development and no sustainable development without peace. Ending hunger and malnutrition, addressing humanitarian and protracted crises, preventing and resolving conflicts, and building peace, are not separate tasks but simply different aspects of the same challenge. We must focus our efforts, public, private, and otherwise, on working in the areas of food security and nutrition, agriculture, fisheries, forestry, technology, education, and research that will enable us to contribute to a safer, more sustainable, and more peaceful world. In many countries, including our own, efforts to mitigate the COVID-19 pandemic have been affected by the effects of climate change and highlight very clearly the problems of food systems. It has increased the risks of greater food insecurity and malnutrition, particularly among the most vulnerable population groups. It is no longer just about transforming food systems but about guiding their recovery from the crisis to become more resilient and effective than what they were before. The Food Systems Summit dialogues are an incredible opportunity to participate in an effective, open, honest, and meaningful way, to collectively explore and emerge resilient, with proposals, agri-food policies, and actions that generate solutions towards sustainable, inclusive, resilient, secure, and diversified agri-food systems. One of the discussion sessions was based on the question "What do we expect from the Food Systems Summit?” The main conclusions were the following: a) that Honduras is a guideline taker and that the summit is an opportunity for the country to present its case to the international community, showing the human face of the consequences of both COVID-19 and the tropical storms. It is not only about transforming our food system but reshaping it to become more resilient than the one we had. b) The summit represents for Honduras the opportunity to design and implement policies that help to make the food supply chain, food environments and, the behavior of producers, processors, marketers and, consumers respectful of the environment and its surroundings, c) That the Summit brings technical support for the transfer of positive experiences and promotes research and technological innovation aimed at food and nutritional security, d) That the Summit brings financing opportunities for development in rural areas and favorable conditions for the reconstruction of the country, e) that efforts should be joined to solve problems that are not specific to a country, but rather to a region; therefore, the Summit becomes an opportunity to evaluate a review of these regional efforts, such as international treaties, for example.236241244245246247248249250251The proposals for action to build resilience in the face of vulnerabilities, shocks and stresses were: (a) Strengthening local capacities for the population to identify their needs and vulnerabilities; (b) Promoting the participation and role of local governments, organized groups and villagers in the design and management of plans aimed at meeting the demands of their needs; (c) Strengthening existing instruments such as emergency protocols, citizen training programs and provision of necessary equipment in the face of climatic, health or other events; d) Establish incentive programs for producers (access to financing, improvement of agricultural wages, technical assistance, market access), to create mechanisms for self-management and self-sustainability in these groups; e) Incorporate new sustainable and nutrition-sensitive production systems, linking economic, social, cultural and environmental aspects, with technologies for adaptation and mitigation of climate change, and accompanied by a program of technical assistance and capacity building at all levels; f) Establish production systems according to vocation, geographic position, and analysis of climate variability; g) Focus efforts on water production systems, with integrated watershed management, soil management, conservation and recovery, incorporation of agroforestry systems, prevention of forest fires, and strengthening of water resource governance; h) Generate strategies for solid waste and solid waste management; i) Strengthen strategies that generate behavioral change in producers and consumers so that they produce/consume traditional, safe, local products with high nutritional value; j) Strengthen mechanisms for the placement of strategic points of access to food in the event of crisis or emergencies; k) Establish constant monitoring of food prices, and l) Create support networks for the management and execution of risk and emergency management plans.236242246248249The proposals for action to reduce inequalities were as follows: a) Promote productive diversification in rural areas for better use of natural resources, promoting family farming; b) Expand and strengthen community organization through cooperatives or other initiatives focused on competitiveness; c) Improve access routes for product mobilization, which is egalitarian and guarantees the quality and safety of products; d) Include or standardize the content of food and nutrition education and agricultural production in school education, rescuing the food culture of the population according to the area of the country and promoting the culture of food security; e) Promote the food industry from collection centers to increase added value; f) Provide farmers with access to fair prices, recognizing their efforts to produce and reduce costs by teaching them to harvest according to their land and formalize markets; g) Nutrition action plans for vulnerable populations and school feeding programs; h) Equitable distribution of water, which is vital for farmers; i) Rehabilitation of crops and productive infrastructure affected by storms Eta and Iota; j) Agricultural extension programs and management of institutions that allow access to appropriate technology to generate subsistence food and income for small farmers; k) Streamlining processes to make them less bureaucratic in terms of promoting family farming; L) Creating school gardens to improve food quality and generate income for families.237241242248249250251The areas of divergence identified in the dialogue were : 1. Some participants stressed the importance of prioritizing the work and approach of local government as crucial for food systems, while others emphasized the need to involve the Central Government in decision-making and program implementation. 2. The second area of divergence identified was the issue of "production according to the producers' vocation" versus the vision of "production according to the productive zones". 3. One participant highlighted the need to focus not only on climate change but also on improving prices and incentives; on the other hand, the debate recorded the need to create protocols to prepare and build resilience in the face of possible climate risks. 4. Some participants argued that the identification and implementation of financial products and investment programs are essential to provide opportunities for small and medium-sized producers, while another participant stated that agricultural insurance has not worked for small producers because of their high level of risk, alternatives must be found to guarantee access to financing for these small producers. 5. One participant emphasized the importance of incorporating sustainable production that makes use of new innovations and technologies, as long as it is accompanied by a technical assistance program.

2021-05-16 05:33:13204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/11436/145

2503

The dialogue was an open invitation to academic and national institutions as well as leading experts and interested individuals working with farmers groups, consumers groups, indigenous groups, students, faculty in food , food security, food systems, value chain, sustainability, and vulnerable/endangered mountain areas.We had Dr Martin Frick, Deputy to the UN Spokesperson and Mr. Oliver Oliveros, UN System Champions Lead who gave a message and reflections during this Independent Dialogue.

Yes

234238239240241242244246248249251It is a comprehensive exploration of the food issues and food systems in the Philippines235238239240241242244246247248249251See attached report .236238239240241242244246247248249251See attached report237244245246247248249250251Suggestion to add a sixth Action Track to address issues of MNCs and Corporate Farming

https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fyoutube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DjSQupE0g-BE%26fbclid%3DIwAR3KivkVGt26gY6cySdwHdhDW5Se50mzfLehOapdPgWA5_cw4RcnfLoJVbo&h=AT3ZW_A9CzGnJO9f3C2IvMPL1lyE_kqSvC81eY1gyxLIbuFcVf9gur1TEZga8nbkVPDrb4WchSt6QhWc594xV0XlpE2FwIxdWboRyhXek64LBRE5_YHOqD4r7ZoPgeh2kh-PMOYwTGMxCqDrzQ&__tn__=%2CmH-R&c[0]=AT0wY8p474FKyMJdP8UiXcgvxicCXHhVbuQV6Mp-spOQ1wBIYqaxkpcwzNP6KDlgXe2NvmpOqs_WSMmRnThWnEw5lzKQakQOeyfQtkrefRuoEc19j69n4ae7DLQQEUOI5T7mHBNR4jPdzmTq7E6c_BtSIUfdI206nXlr2JgAHivBtpQoUbcxOhqNxekNiWlfKOS5JnXLuzflGyrchttps://www.facebook.com/groups/foodsystemscommunitydialogues/?ref=share

The first-ever independent dialogue from the academic sector of the Philippines held on 16 April 2021 organized by Ateneo de Manila University and Xavier University and SDSN. Five high-level resource persons provided their perspectives on the five action tracks. An inspirational message by Dr Martin Frick, Deputy to the UN Rapporteur for the UNFSS and Mr. Oliver Oliveros from the UNFSS secretariat gave his reflections. The meeting attended by some 250 persons, is attached. 2021-05-16 05:50:592021-05-16 06:11:092021-05-18 10:47:22https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1WJ8e2kh0yJ5Kenaj-9GCi4jWn8iTdVGg?usp=sharing

2021-05-16 22:12:03205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/8629/135

721430226383467423272043332624443354512241712

The dialogue was organized in inclusive and participatory manner taking into consideration the various stakeholder groups. During the pre-dialogue preparations, engagements with the states stressed the need for representation from various sectors, gender balance and adequate representation across age groups.During the meeting, Chatham house rules were instituted, stakeholders were encouraged to be respectful, recognize the complexity of the food systems in the South-East and also discuss actions that are currently working in order to build upon it. An overview of the food systems and country-level food systems updatesIt is important to set the tone for the conversations and provide some background/context before the dialogue deliberations commence. This is because the stakeholders in the room are from a diverse range of sectors and doing this encourages collective thinking about the food systems as opposed to participants thinking of just their sector.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Before the meeting held in various regions of the country, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) commissioned a diagnostic study of the food system as it operates in the 6-geopolitical zones of the country. The diagnostic paper was explored the agricultural scene, nutrition and food safety, food trade and transportation as well as external factors that affect the food systems including environmental factors, policies and plans, insecurity amongst others in the country. The diagnostic paper revealed that the South-East food system is characterized by agricultural livelihood activities such as crop production and livestock production. Food waste and loss is also high in the region leading to food insecurity, hunger and loss of income for farmers. The South-East has actively processes cash and staple crops such as rice, cassava, oil palm. Food consumption is below recommendations and diets are not diversified in the same vein, malnutrition rates are slightly higher than international average. Adoption of climate smart agricultural practices is low and the region faces climate change effects such as seasonal flooding and soil erosion. Actors involved in the food system in the South-East States include farmers and farmer groups, trader associations, processors, government, private sector, nutrition and health workers and extension (community health and agriculture) workers. The major focus of the south-east dialogue was to drive discussion on reshaping the food systems in the south east to achieve the sustainable development goals (SDGs) by 2030 taking into consideration the challenges in the system. Identifying key drivers of the food systems particular to Enugu, Anambra and Ebonyi States and also making outcomes and recommendations for the advancement of the Food System in the South Est and Nigeria as a whole. The focus of this meeting was achieved by an exploration of the 5 action tracks as they pertained to the South-East. Five facilitators who are skilled in the 5 action tracks led participants on discussions on the 5 action tracks as they relate to the South-East.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Key Findings that emerged from the dialogue include: 1. Erosion and seasonal flooding in the south-east area reduces agricultural land for farmers to cultivate, leads to loss of livelihoods and disrupts the food systems in the region by creating food insecurity and loss of food productivity 2. The south-east is also plagued with recent bouts of insecurity in the region due to farmer-herder clashes. This clashes have led to destruction of farm crops, forced migration, death and forms of sexual violence perpetuated on women and children have resulted in reduced agricultural activity 3. Diets consumed in the region are often monotonous and more recently, the increased proliferation of fast food and processed foods in the markets, restaurants and public places. Consumption of healthy diets needs focus on production and availability of healthy and safe foods. Consumer education is important to instruct and inform consumers 4. Food safety is an issue as widespread in the region and regulatory agencies have conflicting mandates which has led to difficulties in regulating foods pushed to the consumers at different levels 5. There are some innovations ongoing in the food systems such as zero interest loans to farmers. These innovations need to be up scaled across the region. Agricultural development in the region has some innovation ongoing but need to be up scaled and discussed 6. General consensus is that the region needs to move to self-sufficiency in terms of food production.  While these transformations will be a journey, we must start by taking some strategic and immediate transition steps – the suggested steps include: - Inclusiveness in the food system through improved access to productive input along the food system. Some challenges around access to inputs include land ownership and inheritance by women; low collateral/ high interest rates on agricultural loans limiting rural farmer’s access to loans for agricultural activities - Cattle ranching in the area and legislation against open grazing. - Social protection mechanisms and insurance of farms and agricultural goods to improve resilience to shock - Awareness creation and consumer engagement on improved consumption of nutritious local foods is needed. Neglected foods such as ukwa, ugba, fiofio and other forgotten vegetables need to be reintroduced into the diets of igbos. Research on and propagation of slowly dying/extinct foods is also needed - Infrastructural development for improved food systems. Agricultural process such as farm preparation, harvesting and processing would benefit from better access to land, water as well as improved technologies to scale up food production and improve the nutrition content of foods produced - Establish a criteria and procedure for determining vulnerability in the region to enable contextualization and solutions to the problems of the region. The south ease faces different shocks and stresses than other parts of the country so it is important for a localized approach to determine vulnerability - Use of old methods of preservation to improve the shelf-life of perishable foods - Strengthening of multi-level engagement of food safety regulatory agencies through improved capacity building and funding as well as prohibition against cultivation of foods near dump sites, industrial zones and mining areas - Development of some guidelines for food consumption such as food based dietary guidelines (FBDG) and Food Consumption Tables - Collaboration across sectors and governance including private-public partnerships - Widespread consumer education through schools, hospitals, markets etc. Consumers need to be better educated on the foods they consume and also make better choices to prevent food safety illnesses - Strengthening the market board to regulate food prices for consumer and producer protection - Collective agreement by the region to collaborate and share lessons - Food safety with regards to waste disposal should be done with the help of Private investors to incentivise properly separated wastes according to specifications. This will help in recycling and help reduce environmental hazards236238243244245246247248249250251Ensuring access to safe and nutritious food for all What actions in next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion Topic? Strand 1: Reducing hunger and inequality  Encourage people to engage in crop production and animal husbandry  Improve access road to agrarian communities  Inclusion of women and youth in aricultural programmes  New innovations and modern technologies in tackling post-harvest losses  Make innovation on preservation techniques and value addition to Agric commodities  Disseminate information on Agric credit and programmes to profiled farmers  Need for Public Private Partnership  Address and prevent malnutrition Strand 2: Increasing availability and affordability of nutritious foods  Encourage value addition through processing of the produce  Provide inputs for production and provide access/link farmers to off-takers  Public-Private partnership to sustain uptake and processing of the produce  Improved research for the production of improved high yielding varieties of produce  Create awareness on the nutritional benefits of bio-fortified crops and encourage farmers to cultivate the different varieties of the bio-fortified crops  Address the menace of herders that leads to no harvest  Mainstream nutrition into agriculture so that farmers can appreciate the need for producing nutritious foods Strand 3: Ensuring safe food  Consumer awareness and demand for safer food  Set-up quality assurance laboratory for crop and animal produce  Standard Organization of Nigeria (SON) should be strengthened on its oversight and regulatory role  Restrict production of crops in mining areas, industrial areas and dumping sites to avoid contamination by heavy metals  Encourage waste recycling and give incentives to household for waste separation and proper disposal. This would reduce the level of crop contamination What contributions will our organisations make?  Relevant Government Agency will sensitize the public  Ministry of Agriculture will encourage the use of compost manure to reduce the risk posed by the use of inorganic fertilizer  Local Governments should provide cottage processing plants in communities  Civil Society Scaling Up Nutrition (CS-SUN) network increase advocacy to MDAs for improved budgetary provision for agriculture and health  SON should introduce fine for food related offenders  Academia to pass information on current research findings on farming methods to farmers. How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful?  Frequent data gathering and analysis will be used to determine improved food production  Health records from community health center to monitor nutrition related complaints  Establish Crop production database to see progression in food production  Nutrition surveillance data will be used to check for progress in stunting, wasting and micro-nutrient deficiencies236239243244245246247248249250251Shift to Sustainable Consumption Patterns What actions in next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion Topic? 1. Advocacy and awareness creation to promote consumption of micronutrients rich and bio-fortified foods. 2. Improved availability and accessibility of safe and nutritious foods in markets, schools, places of work and public places. This would enable consumers to make better food choices 3. Wide scale consumer education using resources such as the Food Composition Table and food based dietary guidelines, to help in adjusting consumption pattern 4. Teaching households on local ways of processing and preserving fruits and vegetables to elongate their shelf life and minimize wastage 5. Encouraging positive food use behaviours such as “first in first use” (sorting), eating foods that look ugly (because they contain the same nutritional content)in using foods 6. Practicing good food and hygiene practices to reduce food-bourne diseases. What contributions will our organisations make? 1. Development agencies and allied organizations should put in place equipment funding and lease facilities to stimulate establishment of food processing plants. 2. Capacity of food processors should be built by relevant bodies, to be able to sustain production of assorted shelf stable products for optimum consumption choices. 3. Research funding opportunities ought to be widened, to stimulate product development and quality characterization. 4. Assist in funding publication of research results as well as in creating adequate awareness, on the health benefits of food products for easy acceptance and consumption. 5. Training of youths on agriculture and entrepreneurial skills should be prioritized, to sustain food processing plants. How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? 1. Improved health status of the general populace, due to right food choices. 2. Right consumption choices that would influence the environment positively. 3. Increased number and spread of food processing facilities 4. Prevalence of organically grown foods 5. Assorted local food products packaged in convenient forms and sizes. 6. Enhanced food composition knowledge.236240243244245246247248249250251Boost Nature-Positive Food Production What actions in next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion Topic? Governments of States in the South East Region and other stakeholders should play vital roles in the following areas: • Encourage mixed farming; Eco friendly system of land development; use of improved varieties of seedlings; increased innovation in digital agricultural practices to link producers, buyers and sellers. • Encourage recycling of waste products ( eg. Cassava peels used to feed pigs, etc). • Creation of awareness on the nutritional values of local products/encourage stake holders in the dissemination of information regarding patronage of locally produced foods( stakeholders such as churches, community leaders, etc). • Discourage excess use of inorganic manures in production. • Legislation to govern land development. • Soil scientists to play vital role in social development. • Chemicals use to be in comformity to international standards. • Development of infrastructure to aid food preservation and storage. • Diversification of production ( introduce crops grown outside the South East region to our local economy, eg carrot, cucumber,etc. • Intensification of activities in livestock and other areas of production- e.g local cow, goat, sheep, carrot, piggery, fishery, snail, honey, etc. Cooperative societies should be encouraged. • Immediate implementation of existing agricultural policies/programmes. • South Eastern farmers should additionally be encouraged to see agriculture as business. • Form security network to protect farms, farmers and their products. • Need to improve access to production inputs. • Provision of soft credits to farmers by governments. • Collaboration with agricultural departments in institutions of higher learning. • Encourage research through grants, among others. What contributions will our organisations make?  We will ask our government to enunciate policies and implement them within the context of recommendations made above.  Stake holders to invest in agriculture.  Encourage staff to embark on any form of agricultural activity no matter how rudimentary.  Encourage private sector collaborations as well as private-public arrangements. How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? Through monitoring.236241243244245246247248249250251[ADVANCED EQUITABLE LIVELIHOOD] What actions in next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion Topic? - Hunger reduction by increased food production and supply. - Making food available and affordable. - Insuring that the food is safe and of high nutritional quality and value. - Information about food sources and how to access them. What contributions will our organisations make? - Creating awareness to change peoples’ food consumption pattern. - Information about sources of food. - Safe handling and utilisation of food for best use. - Liaising with government and local authorities for information on food production, processing, packaging and distribution. How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? - By monitoring, evaluation, cross-examination of people and communities. - Observable impact such as: change in food habit. - Improvement from serious poverty level to better standard of living.236242243244245246247248249250251Building Resilience to Vulnerabilities, Shock and Stress What actions in next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion Topic? RE-EVAULATE THE SYSTEM; Doing a SWOT analysis (strength, weaknesses, opportunity and threat) of the food system Reform and domesticate the policies to the south east zone to make it fairly independent of external forces, gender friendly and all-inclusive policies that caters for the disable such as the land use policies , setting up institutions to implement and checkmate deterrents by criminalization of offenders. COMMERCIALIZATION OF AGRICULTURE FOOD WASTAGE; zero water by- product utilization an initiative of integrating farming where by products from a food sector can be use in other sectors as a source RANCHING; To train indigenous community on cattle rearing and government collaborating with individuals, institutions on ranching FOOD PRODUCTION DIVERSIFICATION; based on different community comparative and competitive advantage communities grow food based on the soil, environment and link up with other communities that needs them. STRENGHTENING THE MARKETING BOARD: to regulate the food produce flow , price control and distribution by buying excesses storing and releasing them when there is scarcity. CLIMATE SMART PRACTICES ; By creating awareness through these associations on the importance of planting cover cropping, mulching, intercropping zero or minimal tillage to reduce the impact of some climatic emergencies such as flooding, erosion drought. INSECURITY Could be communal clashes, political, banditry and farmer herders clash. ACCOUNTABILITY Civil society organization demands for accountability should be respected by the SE government SHOCK ABSOPTION; The effect of shock should be address by the government through cooperatives and agricultural societies by giving soft loans and other incentives to farmers What contributions will our organisations make? • To research institute and academia to produce improved seedlings and disease resistant livestock for the SE zone • Financially supporting small and medium scale farmers through their association and cooperatives by given result oriented soft loans • Sponsoring annual result meetings for the Southeast zone this will make SE assess their achievements and areas that need improvement How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successful? • Using indicators such as farmers percentage enrolment in cooperatives, • How many farmers improve their farm produce through Government or NGO support such as loan • Storage capacity of farm produce in silos across the SE ZONE • number of community owned storage system built • Improvement on the Agricultural marketing and surveillance information system237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251GROUP 1  Lack of coordination between the different agencies, organisations and parastatals GROUP 2 1. Consumption divergences • Urgent cultural re-orientation is needed to persuade consumers to shift from unhealthy conventional diets to our home grown foods. • Seasonal availability of most grown crops in the south east distorts consumption pattern, therefore, efficient processing and packaging techniques should be adopted to make them available, consequently stabilizing consumption plan in season and off season. 2. Lack of suitable policies to drive efficient consumption pattern. • Enacted food consumption related policies should be devoid selfish interests • Relevant stakeholders should champion/promote consumption of bio-fortified and organically grown foods. 3. Reduction of food waste 4. Strategies to improve food system by 2030? 1. Revival of local/traditional foods production and seed storage system which are into extinction 2. Promotion of tree planting economy and institution of plantation culture (afforestation) 3. Promoting value addition and branding of our locally produced food to be more appealing. 4. To enact policies that would enhance consumption of locally produced foods up to 80% by 2030, 5. Specific strategies to stimulate consumption of safe and environmentally friendly food 1. Advocacy on health benefits of consumption of organic foods 2. Eating our locally produced meat sources (poultry, fish, snail, etc) and encouraging ranching. 3. Cultural attachment to our locally produced meat , fruits, vegetables, cereals and legume sources. GROUP 3 • Inadequate production due to gross insecurity: Farmers deserting land, farming, etc - The South – East region should form a strong security network to secure life, property and produce/products. • Inadequate irrigation facilities - There should be improvement in the provision of these facilities. • Government activities still inadequate - Government should be more serious and committed to agricultural development. GROUP 4 - Differences in education or literate level, poverty level, personal preferences, choices, likes and dislikes. How to manage these divergences? - By education, enlightenment, various interventions such as: trainings, seminars and encouraging them to embrace multi sectorial approach. - Build trust and confidence in them by forming them into corporative societies through which they could access loans and other input facilities. - Break food habit by making them to consider other food types in line with understanding of their health benefits. GROUP 5 • Insecurity- using community policing • Ranching – training our local species of cow to commercial level • Cultural festival- using cultural festival such as new yam to sensitize the youths on farming, healthy competitions among farmers etc

PLEASE I MADE A MISTAKE OF SUBMITTING OWERRI DIALOGEU REPORT FOR ENUGU. I NEED TO CORRECT THE ERROR. THANK YOU2021-05-07 13:37:40https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Enugu-Exploratory-Dialogue-Report.docx

2021-05-17 10:39:10205Stage 3https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/9826/91

999

Ireland strongly supports the call for a ‘people’s summit’ and a ‘solutions summit’. Ireland has prioritised the seven principles of engagement as the overarching framework for the planning and preparation of its four National Dialogues. This will ensure a people and solutions focus throughout the national level engagement in the Summit process. The National Dialogues coincide with the launch for public consultation of Ireland’s draft Agri-food Strategy to 2030. This new 10-year Strategy has been developed using a food systems approach, making Ireland one of the first countries in the world to implement this approach in national level agriculture and food planning. Ireland is committed to maximising the contribution of the four National Dialogues to the future sustainability of Ireland’s food system. The Dialogues will provide an opportunity for all food system actors and stakeholders, from farmers and fishers to consumers, to learn more about Ireland’s food system, build a shared understanding of the challenges and the opportunities we face, and enable us to work together to address them. The outcomes of the National Dialogues will be considered in finalising the draft 2030 Agri-food Strategy.The following are some examples of how Ireland’s National Dialogues reflect specific aspects of the seven principles of engagement: 1. Act with urgency Ireland has responded to the call for urgent action by launching a series of four National Dialogues. These coincide with a public consultation on the draft 2030 Agri-food Strategy. This coherence allows for a comprehensive consultation on the future of Ireland’s food system in the shortest possible time. 2. Commit to the Summit Ireland has identified the National Dialogues as a central part of its strategic engagement with the Summit. Ireland has demonstrated its commitment to the Summit by aligning the National Dialogues with the national agriculture and food planning process to develop its Agri-food Strategy to 2030. 3. Be respectful Through the involvement of a wide and diverse range of food systems actors and stakeholders in the National Dialogues, Ireland is ensuring that everyone has an equal opportunity to contribute to the discussion on the future sustainability of Ireland’s food system. We are all part of Ireland’s food system, and so we must respect and listen to all participants. 4. Recognise complexity To reflect the public consultation on its draft Agri-food Strategy to 2030, Ireland has created a series of National Dialogues to discuss the complex and interlinked social, environmental and economic challenges and opportunities we face. 5. Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity Ireland’s Food Systems Summit Steering Committee, an inter-departmental group tasked with coordinating Ireland’s involvement in the Summit, has proactively engaged multiple food systems stakeholder groups and provided regular briefings on Ireland’s participation in the Summit Action Tracks and the National Dialogues.Contd. In selecting participants to be involved in the various panel discussions, the Steering Committee actively sought experts from across the entire food system, from civil society, private and public sectors, primary producer organisations, research and academia, youth etc. Ireland created a dedicated webpage for the National Dialogues, and advertised the Dialogues widely through multiple media platforms and partner organisations. To facilitate the broadest possible engagement during the Dialogues, Ireland live-streamed each event on multiple platforms, including YouTube, Twitter and Facebook. Participation was further encouraged through questions and answer, which could be submitted before the event to a dedicated email address, or submitted during the event in real-time using Sli.do. 6. Complement the work of others The Steering Committee has actively consulted with, supported and participated in the many Independent Dialogues that have been held in Ireland since the start of the Summit’s Dialogue process. In addition, Ireland will incorporate the official feedback from all Independent Dialogues held in Ireland into its final synthesis report, to ensure the views and opinions of all food systems actors and stakeholders are recorded and reflected in the final outcomes of the National Dialogues. 7. Build trust By ensuring the widest possible engagement, and respectfully listening to and answering questions on the most important and challenging areas of our food system, Ireland will look to recognise and respond to the concerns raised during our discussions. We will focus on solutions that can play a role in the continued enhancement of the sustainability of our food system, to reassure all stakeholders of our shared commitment to future sustainability.

NoN/A

234238239240241242243244246247248249250251Ireland’s third National Dialogue focused on ‘Promoting an Inclusive Food System for the Future’. The key note address was delivered by Dr Colin Sage, Independent Scholar on food systems and sustainability. Dr Sage welcomed the conversation on inclusion, and stressed the importance of involving all of society in the transformation to sustainable food systems. Dr Sage highlighted the complex challenges of food security, malnutrition and health in Irish society, where 1 in 8 Irish households suffer from food poverty, while at the same time Ireland has the highest rate of overweight and obesity in the EU. The economic downturn and the impact of the COVID pandemic will place further pressure on global food security and malnutrition, leading to growing health problems, particularly for the less well off in society. The current global food system is simply not sustainable. Dr Sage warned against the misuse of sustainability to mask negative practices, and stressed the need to establish a common understanding of what a sustainable food system is. Dr Sage suggested that sustainability is more complex than establishing the optimum balance between the three pillars of environmental, social and economic, and that real sustainability requires a deeper, more robust conceptualisation. Building on this, Dr Sage suggested that there should be a stronger focus on the interlinkages between human, animal and planetary health; there is a need to adopt a more holistic, transdisciplinary and systems approach focused on building resilience in our food system; and this needs to be supported by a changing ethical framework to take account of our role in the natural world and our coexistence with all other species. One of the learnings from COVID 19, and articulated so well in the keynote speech and in other Dialogues is the interlinkage of food, community, culture and values. There is expectation that food is not only safe and authentic but that it is sourced in an ethically acceptable way, one that respects the planet, the producer, and for food of animal origin, the welfare of that animal. To ‘Build Back Better’ from COVID, we must re-form our food system to be healthier, more sustainable and more inclusive. This will start with commitment to and support for a just transition for all farmers and food producers, and will build out to engaging all citizens of society in support of sustainable food systems transformation. The key note address was followed by two separate panel discussions. The first Panel discussion focused on ‘Food Systems Transformation: A Discussion on Future Needs’. Young people will have a critical role in shaping sustainable production and consumption, and forging new connections between rural and urban society. The panel discussed the options, challenges and opportunities that this creates. The second panel addressed ‘Food Systems Transformation: The role of Research and Innovation’. Innovation, technology and the bioeconomy present new opportunities for the Irish agri-food sector over the coming decade. The panel discussed how research, entrepreneurship and public-private partnerships can help deliver on these possibilities.235238239240241242243244246247248249250251- There is a strong commitment across all stakeholder groups to realise a sustainable food system in Ireland. - There was broad agreement on the need to listen to, hear and involve all citizens and communities across the generational spectrum in the food system debate. - Urban and peri-urban food systems are an increasing important part of the local, regional and global food system. - Young people, and particularly young primary producers, will play a central role in the transition to a more sustainable food system. - Education and training is key to bridging the growing disconnect between young people and the sustainable production and consumption of food. - There is full agreement that producers need to be economically viable. - A cheap food policy is not sustainable, and the value of food must be reflected in the true cost of food production. - Generational renewal and increasing the role of women in the food system are critical to the long term sustainability of Ireland’s food system. - Sustainability solutions call for long-term political commitment to integrated, cross-departmental policies and actions. - Food has become a knowledge-based industry, and research and innovation is critical to making food part of the solution. - Ireland is a small country with a strong reputation for producing safe, sustainable, high-quality food. It was argued that Ireland is well placed to lead this science and knowledge based transformation to healthier more sustainable food using new research and innovations. - Research and innovation will play an important role in the food system of tomorrow.236238239240241242243244246247248249250251See attachment for details - word count limit.236238239240241242243244245246248249250251See attachment for details - word count limit.237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The opening keynote address and the subsequent panel discussions identified a number of diverse views, many of which were noted in previous dialogues. - Lack of a common understanding of what a sustainable food system means in practice. - Diverging views on the role of livestock farming in a sustainable food system. - The challenge of embracing new and emerging innovations and technologies, while protecting consumer health and safety, food quality and enhancing sustainability standards. - The existence of food insecurity and malnutrition, and the relative unaffordability of healthy diets, coupled with a cheap food policy that is returning less to the primary producer and placing an unsustainable demand on our environment and climate.

2021-05-17 15:43:09204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/16249/203

11197717405776630114122112318826

1. Introductory Session embracing and sharing all Principles of Engagement 2. Promotion of Cultures 3. Sharing Good Examples of Practice (evidence-based information, case studies, statistics, etc.) 4. Finding a right definition of Global Food Systems to speak a universal language 5. Providing translatable information to everyone, in particular to food industry leaders and community heroes- A respectful conversation and dialogue has been led - Everyone has been provided with a space to share stories, ideas and proposals

Yes

2342382392422432442482492511. Comprehensive exploration of food systems, particularly in German speaking countries and greater Central European region. 2. Emphasis on traditional agricultural commodities that are highly consumed in Switzerland and nearby regions like cocoa, Mediterranean products, dairy and grains. 3. Examination of links between Action Track 1 and Action Track 2. 4. Discussed Mediterranean dietary patterns in the greater region of Switzerland - cultural adaptations, culinary practice, knowledge of chefs, success of community-minded projects, social prescription through food and culinary education2352382392432442472482492511. Lack of nutrition education (culinary nutrition) among chefs and wider hospitality workforce 2. A need for more community-oriented projects with a strong emphasis on food education 3. Going back to the roots: A soil for food - food for soul 4. Need for actions to improve transferability of the Mediterranean Diet in the non-Mediterranean Regions 5. More food education, particularly about typical Mediterranean products (olive oil, grains, cheese) needed in German speaking countries 6. Need to create platforms to develop collaborations and important bridges between scientists, producers and consumers. 7. A need to create a social prescribing network in Switzerland, German speaking countries and Central Europe 8. Possible implementation of culinary medicine through social prescribing networks to reduce the burden on healthcare 9. A lack of data and evidence in the Central European region (Slovakia, Czech republic, Poland, Hungary) 10. Making food education obligatory at elementary schools.2362382392432442461. Achievement of consensus through collaborative and problem-solving discussion. 2. Creating a universal language to define a problem and developing a productive discussion 3. Created a Learn and Share model 4. Expanding of knowledge about nutrition 5. Provided evidence-based information2372382392412422462482491. Access to local products 2. Policy improvement for farmers and producers 3. Food labeling 4. Focusing on how to actually prevent food waste rather than how to reduce it

2021-05-17 18:48:23204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/4600/164446

3352053262613721468141426814

The meeting convened by the GEPAMA Group of Landscape Ecology and Environment, FADU, of the University of Buenos Aires and AGROECO2 of the UNGS, was held as INDEPENDENT DIALOGUE under the open window of the DIALOGUES towards the WORLD FOOD SUMMIT 2021. The meeting was attended by prominent world, regional and local specialists in the field of AGROECOLOGY, such as Miguel Altieri, Clara Nicholls, Walter Pengue, Richard Intriago, Silvana Buján, María Esther Lasta, Daniel Díaz, Francisca Pancha Rodriguez, Andrea Rodriguez, Karina Bidaseca, Roxana Villegas, Luis Moro, René Montalba (in part of the meeting) and the registered participation of more than 350 stakeholders from practically all of LAC and other regions. The most important topics touched on, were linked to the COVID19 crisis, the concern for both the co-option of Agroecology and the Summit indicated by the powerful groups of digital agriculture and Big Data, the environmental, social and health impacts of agriculture industry, the change in the world and Argentine food diets, the role of public policies and the relevance of the peasantry in favor of AGROECOLOGY and the ECOAGROFOOD SYSTEM in towns and cities.It was clearly highlighted that it is through Agroecology and a locally-based Eco-agri-food System where the most efficient and beneficial path is found not only for farmers but also for consumers, and the special role of these systems in crisis situations such as those that we have now. We also face the importance of strengthening proximity chains, peasant marketing channels, the support of science and technology to these productive needs, access to land, water, genetic resources, self-production systems of food and education in it - and from early childhood - the role of culture and ancestral wisdom in a constructive dialogue of peer-to-peer knowledge and the transgenerational strengthening of this transmission. The statement of Dr. Miguel Altieri shedding light on the role of Agroecology in these times - which can be heard towards the end of this broadcast - has made very clear his concern about the impact of these World Encounters and especially the role played by Organizations such as FAO, CGIAR and other multilateral entities with enormous responsibility for the problem posed such as food, the co-optation problems involved and the true integral sense of what agroecology is and what is not, as shown by the vision of one of the its main global diffusers. At the beginning of the presentations, we have succinctly shown that Summit after Summit, FAO that recently turned 75 years old and since the 1970s have been proposing these types of World Meetings, has not managed to end this human scourge. Possibly this instance (GFS 2021) can serve, rather than to spend or direct funds and resources of the countries towards these unsustainable initiatives or projects, to help ensure that they are directed in the first place to processes of high social impact and resolution of tSEE REPORT AND STATISTICS ATTACH

Yes

234238239240241242243244246249251AGROECOLOGY, ECOAGRIFOOD SYSTEM AND SOCIOENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH: A WAY FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT– GLOBAL FOOD SUMMIT 2021 14 de Mayo de 2021 – Argentina, Chile, Bolivia, Ecuador y Colombia. https://www.youtube.com/c/GEPAMAFADU The meeting convened by the GEPAMA Group of Landscape Ecology and Environment, FADU, of the University of Buenos Aires and AGROECO2 of the UNGS, was held as INDEPENDENT DIALOGUE under the open window of the DIALOGUES towards the WORLD FOOD SUMMIT 2021. The meeting was attended by prominent world, regional and local specialists in the field of AGROECOLOGY, such as Miguel Altieri, Clara Nicholls, Walter Pengue, Richard Intriago, Silvana Buján, María Esther Lasta, Daniel Díaz, Francisca Pancha Rodriguez, Andrea Rodriguez, Karina Bidaseca, Roxana Villegas, Luis Moro, René Montalba (in part of the meeting) and the registered participation of more than 350 stakeholders from practically all of LAC and other regions. The most important topics touched on, were linked to the COVID19 crisis, the concern for both the co-option of Agroecology and the Summit indicated by the powerful groups of digital agriculture and Big Data, the environmental, social and health impacts of agriculture industry, the change in the world and Argentine food diets, the role of public policies and the relevance of the peasantry in favor of AGROECOLOGY and the ECOAGROFOOD SYSTEM in towns and cities. It was clearly highlighted that it is through Agroecology and a locally-based Eco-agri-food System where the most efficient and beneficial path is found not only for farmers but also for consumers, and the special role of these systems in crisis situations such as those that we have now. We also face the importance of strengthening proximity chains, peasant marketing channels, the support of science and technology to these productive needs, access to land, water, genetic resources, self-production systems of food and education in it - and from early childhood - the role of culture and ancestral wisdom in a constructive dialogue of peer-to-peer knowledge and the transgenerational strengthening of this transmission. The statement of Dr. Miguel Altieri shedding light on the role of Agroecology in these times - which can be heard towards the end of this broadcast - has made very clear his concern about the impact of these World Encounters and especially the role played by Organizations such as FAO, CGIAR and other multilateral entities with enormous responsibility for the problem posed such as food, the co-optation problems involved and the true integral sense of what agroecology is and what is not, as shown by the vision of one of the its main global diffusers. At the beginning of the presentations, we have succinctly shown that Summit after Summit, FAO that recently turned 75 years old and since the 1970s have been proposing these types of World Meetings, has not managed to end this human scourge. Possibly this instance (GFS 2021) can serve, rather than to spend or direct funds and resources of the countries towards these unsustainable initiatives or projects, to help ensure that they are directed in the first place to processes of high social impact and resolution of the problems of rural development, improve the quality of life, education and health and support the initiatives of independent science, which based on Agroecology (really the first support of what the UN at least calls in the papers, Solutions based on Nature), can come true. And avoid emptying the field of people and filling it with machines and data ...235238239240242244246247251At the beginning of the presentations, we have succinctly shown that Summit after Summit, FAO that recently turned 75 years old and since the 1970s have been proposing these types of World Meetings, has not managed to end this human scourge. Possibly this instance (GFS 2021) can serve, rather than to spend or direct funds and resources of the countries towards these unsustainable initiatives or projects, to help ensure that they are directed in the first place to processes of high social impact and resolution of the problems of rural development, improve the quality of life, education and health and support the initiatives of independent science, which based on Agroecology (really the first support of what the UN at least calls in the papers, Solutions based on Nature), can come true.236SEE REPORT AND STATISTICS ATTACH237SEE REPORT AND STATISTICS ATTACH

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/11-RICHARD-INTRIAGO.jpghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/8-ROXANA-VILLEGAS.jpghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/9-CLARA-NICHOLLS-ESTRADA.jpghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/13-MIGUEL-ALTIERI.jpghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/2-PENGUE-WALTER.jpghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/flyer_difusion_SI_14_05_21.jpghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/14-de-MAYO-WEBINAR-SISTEMAS-ALIMENTARIOS-BUENOS-AIRES-GEPAMA.jpghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/IMAGEN-PEQUENA-PARA-YOUTUBE-DIALOGOS-14-DE-MAYO-2021.jpghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/PAGINA-GEPAMA-YOUTUBE-AVISO-SISTEMAS-ALIMENTARIOS-14-DE-MAYO-2021.jpghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/SPANISHENFLISHSTATISTICS-GEPAMA-DIALOGOS-SISTEMAS-ALIMENTARIOS-GFS-2021-May-2021.pdfhttp://www.gepama.com.ar

2021-05-17 21:56:10204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/7576/203

3061861812271216111223514210

The Global Salmon Initiative and World Wildlife Fund’s Food Systems Summit Dialogue, Mobilizing food system change with private sector leadership: Lessons from aquaculture, was envisioned and organized with trust and mutual respect at its core. The convenors prioritized inviting diverse actors from across the entirety of food systems, discussing long-term visions for sustainable food production, building on knowledge, experience and wisdom, and identifying priorities for action within the context of current realities. And finally, the Chatham House Rule was clearly followed throughout the event to encourage openness and a “safe space” for sharing opinions. Additionally, upon registration participants were emailed the Principles and asked to read them prior to attending. During the event, the Principles were shared on-screen and the curator reminded participants of the Principles’ critical importance to the event.The Global Salmon Initiative and World Wildlife Fund’s Food Systems Summit Dialogue was convened to consider the need to act with urgency to create transformations of our food systems and contribute to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. This Dialogue focused on highlighting solutions for change at speed and scale, using examples from aquaculture. This Dialogue was envisioned to recognize complexity within food systems through its incorporation of perspectives from multiple stakeholders as well as trades-offs and potential synergistic approaches for change. Participants were encouraged to share their perspectives, welcome differing opinions, and work towards finding common ground. And finally, this Dialogue complemented the work of others, by providing a space to connect stakeholders from various sectors, share best practices and lessons learned and build upon existing partnerships for food systems transformation.To truly appreciate the Principles of Engagement when planning and hosting a Dialogue, it is crucial to involve as many diverse participants and stakeholders as possible and as is relevant. Another key component is to formulate breakout group discussion topics and questions to clearly recognize the complexity of food systems solutions. Lastly, breakout groups work well when they are smaller and participants understand that expressing diverse opinions on key issues is encouraged.

Yes

234240243244245246248249250Today’s global food systems face unprecedented challenges, and at the same time, offer many opportunities to drive widescale health, social and environmental progress. This Dialogue explored the role that private sector can play in achieving a more sustainable future for food systems, based on practical examples from the aquaculture industry. As the world’s fastest growing food sector, aquaculture plays an essential role in global food systems. To ensure this growth is managed responsibly, industry stakeholders have united in game-changing ways to develop and introduce sustainability improvements at speed and scale. This Dialogue explored how lessons learned from aquaculture’s environmental sustainability journey could be applied to other aspects of the food system – and how private sector can play a lead role in motivating and embodying the transformations necessary to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals and build more resilient, and healthy food systems. Over the years, aquaculture stakeholders have driven a rapid uptick of sustainability certifications, improvements in traceability, introductions of novel feeds, collective action on climate impact and mitigation, and many more efforts. Advancements like these are difficult, if not impossible, to achieve as individual companies, and often take significant resource and time or only engage few companies. In this Dialogue, participants discussed and demonstrated how through private sector mobilization and multi-stakeholder collaborations these accomplishments have been made possible, could be improved moving forward, and could be transferred to other sectors. Participants heard directly from Sophie Ryan, CEO of Global Salmon Initiative (GSI), Jason Clay, Senior Vice President of Markets at World Wildlife Fund (WWF), José Villalón, Corporate Sustainability Director at Nutreco, and Kristina Furnes, Global Communications Manager at Grieg Seafood about the role and impact of private-sector leadership on food system change. These speakers addressed how they have worked towards environmental improvements in their own organizations or in partnership with private sector, providing illustrative examples of what is possible. For example, Sophie Ryan and Jason Clay spoke to the nearly decade-long partnership between GSI and WWF, and how the experience and success of GSI’s pre-competitive model for responsible farmed salmon production could provide a blueprint for scaling environmental improvement across other food sectors. Through a mix of keynote remarks and breakout discussions, this Dialogue identified best practices and future pathways for sustaining this momentum – both across and beyond the aquaculture industry. Breakout groups focused on the role of the private sector for activating food system change overall, while also diving more specifically into three “levers” of change: sustainable finance, transparency and sustainability certifications, and feed innovations in aquaculture. Through the examination of these key topics, participants concluded that rapid and large-scale improvements are needed to provide nutritious food to a growing population. Additionally, examples from the aquaculture sector, like GSI’s efforts to unite the salmon farming sector in providing consumers around the world with more responsibly raised salmon, provide an example for how other private sector actors could come together in similar ways for food system transformation.235240243244245248249250Participants agreed that the link between environmental challenges, climate change, malnutrition and economic inequality is becoming clearer. Society is looking to the convergence of nutrition and sustainability for solutions. Change at speed and scale is essential to ensure global food systems can provide healthy, sustainable foods. There is a tremendous – and essential – role for the private sector to play in delivering innovation, collaboration and transformation for food systems. Participants believe the aquaculture sector has proven experience mobilizing responsible production progress. It shows how a sector can work collaboratively to identify and implement solutions to environmental challenges at a global scale. This experience is transferrable to other sectors. Discussions focused on different levers of change where aquaculture has experience (sustainable financing, transparency and sustainability certifications, and feed innovations), but common themes were revealed. Participants deemed the following necessary to better realize private sector’s potential for impact: more transparency and disclosure; more transparent reporting; more effective carbon foot-printing disclosure; decoupling deforestation up and down the value chain; and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology and standardization. Participants emphasized that progress cannot simply occur in a private sector silo. There’s a critical need to link science-based regulations, knowledge transfer from big to small companies, and holistic business policy frameworks. Ideally, this approach will enable momentum, collaboration and accountability from the United Nations as well. Participants saw a clear role for private sector to partner with the United Nations and public institutions; they recognized that each of these groups has a unique and vital role to play. Another key theme was that food security equates to national security. Private sector must ensure that nutrient-dense, responsibly produced food is accessible, particularly in the most vulnerable communities. There was clear recognition that private sector efforts must go beyond food security and environmental sustainability, and support livelihoods and social equity. Ultimately, private sector must drive major shifts in mindsets, rules of operation and business models to create equitable, sustainable and healthy food systems. Given that the private sector is often at the forefront of change to keep a competitive edge, participants saw an opportunity to better harness this angle. Through activities such as certification or sustainable investment, there is opportunity to motivate and mobilize further transformation. Several participants had experience working with Global Salmon Initiative (GSI) – either as a GSI member company or NGO partner – and GSI was frequently noted as an example of how industry can work together for science-based environmental improvement and hold itself accountable for achieving ambitious sustainability commitments (e.g., working to achieve 100% of member production to be Aquaculture Stewardship Council [ASC] certified). Over the past eight years, GSI has united 40% of the global farmed salmon industry to develop a unique and proven model of change. It uses the critical mass of industry to set ambitious goals based on where the need is greatest (e.g., reducing pressure on fish stocks through feed innovations), create dedicated expert task forces to share best practices and problem solve, and report transparently each year on progress made. While salmon alone will not feed the world, it is an important part of the solution in providing healthy, sustainable protein while also sharing knowledge with developing sectors. To date, this model of doing business has resulted in GSI’s annual release of an industry-wide sustainability report with independently audited environmental and social data. It’s driven the development of novel and more eco-friendly feed alternatives through direct partnership with feed companies, reduced average antibiotic use by 60% and led to improvements in fish health and welfare. Measurable progress can be seen across the salmon farming sector and across the seven regions where GSI operates. GSI’s model of knowledge sharing, transparency and innovation for environmental improvement is a blueprint that could be replicable across other sectors. As one participant noted, “Most of the work on animal protein to date is driven by reputational risk issues. But animal proteins are the place where we should be pushing for a GSI-type model. We need to make sure they’re reducing key impacts, not just improving reputational risk. Reputational risk reduction is about credibly and measurably reducing key impacts.”236240246249250What role do you see for public private partnerships in enabling food systems transformation? Participants noted that the private sector – along the entire value chain – has an essential role to play and is the driving transformation in many parts of the world, but there is room for improvement. Food and agriculture companies have significant power to enable food systems change, but there needs to be a focus on shared value across the system, rather than siloed business entities. It was stated, “One of the key parts [of change needed] is to move private sectors towards a food systems actor rather than a private business [actor].” Participants noted that CEOs have shareholders they need to respond to immediately, whereas government generally has longer to introduce and measure the impact of policy changes. They felt that private sector can move faster and could ideally help broker conversations with government for urgency and speed. Participants also emphasized the importance of a company’s environmental and social sustainability efforts being prioritized across teams; they should be cross-cutting versus siloed to one division. Participants shared that the private and public sectors must collaborate and design science-based messages based on best practices and existing technologies, which will feed into transparency. Participants noted that public private partnerships are critical for enabling emerging practices, but they are often high risk for not delivering on promised outcomes. Guidance must be given to make sure they are successful, especially regarding the development of new technologies and emerging sectors. One key learning is to introduce staggered or phased investment from the private sector to ensure the program doesn’t end immediately after the government takes over. There also needs to be more clear adoption of maximum lease terms that incentivize industry investment – many times a company will not invest in something unless they are likely to see returns later down the line.236240243248What role do you see for pre-competitive platforms in enabling food systems transformation? Many participants agreed that pre-competitive platforms are a necessary component to drive change at speed and scale. Several participants thought this model was useful for food systems transformation, but it may only be feasible for industries that are more consolidated. It has been difficult for much of the food and agriculture sector to move in this direction because it is complicated to organize and to incorporate smaller farmers and producers in such models. Participants also noted that there is a need to communicate the value of pre-competitive collaborations more broadly to investors and other stakeholders. Pre-competitive platforms work for many reasons. They enable the costs necessary to transform industries around shared environmental goals to be spread more widely, while adhering to legally abiding guidelines. They also help reduce the duplication of efforts and resources while allowing companies to learn from each other on what works and what doesn’t. Another key learning was that we can reduce the burden and demotivation of lofty sustainability goals by working together, not just within the salmon or aquaculture industry but also across the supply chain and with other protein industries. Challenges are coming at accelerating pace and producers need to share information about environmental improvements with fellow producers much more quickly and adeptly if we are to respond effectively.236240243244245How can sustainable finance help contribute to the UN’s vision for a transformed food system? Several participants stated that the whole financial system is taking responsibility in a positive shift. But, they think the trend of standard and opportunity assets is coming to all industries, including food. The finance industry can be a key leader in driving transformations to restore the oceans and co-collaborate to be a strong voice together. If the financial sector signals that it wants changes, the private sector can move forward at a rapid pace. Participants agreed that there are more and more investors looking at how to integrate environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) across their sector. To really drive systemic change in the food and agriculture sector, more research is needed alongside a bigger regulatory push globally like the EU Taxonomy initiative. Participants encouraged quality regulation to support best practices from the private sector and reflect trade-offs that are required. Regulatory frameworks are important to keep sustainable finance at the helm of change, and the EU Taxonomy initiative is a clear example of this. There is a clear way to drive sustainable transformation within the finance sector by making investments with clear key performance indicators (KPIs). In addition to industry metrics and reporting schemes, proper measurement of KPIs in the financial sector is key. Investors can put up the capital to help change, but to sustain it, it must be accepted and valued throughout the value chain to the end consumer.236240243244248How can feed innovations help contribute to the UN’s vision for a transformed food system? Participants agreed that to reduce food system impacts, private sector stakeholders must discover and implement more eco-friendly feed ingredients for aquaculture and other protein sectors. One example came from Grieg Seafood, where their team is working with World Wildlife Fund to assess 400+ feed ingredients across many ESG indicators and mitigate the highest risk ingredients. As the aquaculture sector adopts feed innovations, participants saw on opportunity to apply learnings across the value chain and even to other protein sectors. To further support a reduction in the use of marine ingredients, the aquaculture sector has been investing in non-marine sources rich in omega-3 fatty acids, such as algae, canola crops and insects, and also in improving the efficiency of use of off-cuts and trimmings from other sectors to reduce food loss. In 2015, GSI and its associated feed companies issued a global tender to uncover commercially viable, non-marine alternative sources of omega-3 fatty acids to reduce the environmental impact of fish feed. The tender was a crucial signal to the R&D arena industry needs in a manner which accelerate their development, shortening the innovation process by many years. It resulted in the introduction and industry-wide application of non-marine fish feed ingredients (e.g., reducing fishmeal and fish oil use and increasing algae oil use). It boosted the variety and number of feed options available to the industry while reducing strain on fish stocks. Industry feed companies are now working with multiple providers, incorporating these fish-free ingredients into industry feeds. This approach could be transferrable to other sectors, given its success for salmon farming. Additionally, one participant noted that producing food where it will be consumed will be important to address extreme poverty and smallholder farmers in emerging economies. It can be done by "creating shared value" where feed companies teach techniques and sell feed to produce formulations to raise the livelihoods of smallholder farmers.236240243244248How can transparency and sustainability certifications help contribute to the UN’s vision for a transformed food system? Participants discussed how transparency is key in setting sustainability standards and being accountable if they are not met. It is important to be transparent about what was reached and what was not rather than simply changing the metric after the fact to align with the outcome. Participants noted that industry and government leaders are starting to understand the importance of nature-based solutions for protein production rather than simply minimizing the negative environmental impacts. Certifications may aid in this continued adoption. Sustainability certifications can continue to be improved through third-party auditing and other oversight mechanisms. Several participants noted that certification schemes are more of a risk mitigation tool for food systems and may be especially useful for investment decision making. Certification matters since it is easy for investors to understand these schemes. For example, if 40% of companies are ASC certified, it is clear they are managing environmental, social and corporate governance issues well. Participants felt certifications are not the be-all and end-all, but are a part of risk mitigation. And finally, sustainability certifications are one way for pre-competitive platforms to effectively manage long-term goals. For example, GSI set a focused and ambitious goal of 100% ASC certification and 40% of production is now ASC-certified, up from 0% in 2013. This is the fastest uptake of similar certifications (e.g., Forest Stewardship Council, Marine Stewardship Council) of its kind.237240243244247248250The breakout discussions were rich in conversation but had relatively few areas of divergence. Only a handful of noteworthy instances of differing opinion rose to the top. One participant shared that sustainability might be an outdated term, and that regeneration is a better term to be using since regenerative systems deliver economic value for the farmer and for society. Another participant pointed out that instead of it being one term over the other, we should consider focusing on both sustainability and regeneration in the narratives and solutions for food systems. There were also two opposing opinions on sustainability goal setting. One participant expressed when a company sets a goal and does not meet it, there is the danger that the bar gets lower and lower, and nothing gets achieved. Another participant made the point that setting goals is important and it is okay if they are not perfectly achieved because when the ambitious goals are set the whole industry reacts. And finally, another participant noted that salmon isn’t the most affordable protein option, and accessibility and affordability must be key considerations for food systems transformation. Yet, as a highly innovative and young sector there are many learnings which could be shared with developing sectors to support global food system transformation. Overall, across all breakout groups, there was consistent agreement that food system transformation needs to deliver healthy and sustainable foods, embrace responsible (and regenerative) production methods, and encompass equity and social justice to address the most vulnerable among us.

2021-05-18 10:17:30204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/7431/70

70248202248101227814332363314131

As we organized the dialogue, we recognized the urgency of actions and wanted to come up with solutions that could be implemented within a reasonable time frame and we recognize that farmers in developing countries need our help now due to climate change and other challenges. The sooner we can shift to more sustainable practices globally, the sooner we will start to see positive changes and effects. We commit to the Summit and hope that our outcomes will be useful in the Summit. We are respectful and with our own work strive to improve health and well-being of individuals. We also recognize the complexity of food systems and that’s why we wish to continue the discussions throughout the year and next year. We embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity as we invited participants from different fields and different backgrounds to out Dialogue. We will continue with this approach in our future webinars and discussions in order to gain a more diverse and wide perspective on the food systems. We mentioned that the outcomes of our Dialogue are part of the Food System Summit and that our outcomes will be sent to the FSSD. We built trust by opening the event to anyone who is interested in the topic and by sharing the group discussion outcomes at the end of the webinar. We also shared a summary of the webinar with all the participants and also on our website.The Dialogue participants understand the urgency with our actions and want to be part of the solution. Participants were from different industries and fields representing a wide range of stakeholders. This enabled lively discussions regarding each Action Track and took into account a variety of perspectives. The Dialogue facilitators were chosen based on their facilitator experience and their knowledge of each topic. This enhanced participants’ trust and increased their participation in the discussions. Each participant was respectful of other people’s comments and other cultures. Complexity of the food systems was recognized in group discussions as well as in the opening and closing speeches. Many participants and speakers emphasized that there’s no easy solution for well-functioning food systems globally but with awareness and discussion, we can start to form solutions to the complex issues.When planning who to invite to the Dialogue, include a diverse pool of participants from different sectors, industries and backgrounds. This will make the event and the discussions more inclusive and interesting. Recognize the complexity of food systems during the Dialogue but bring awareness to the urgency of meaningful actions. Even though, finding solutions to well-functioning food systems require much discussion, planning and cooperation globally, actions should be planned urgently so that steps can be taken towards food security. Bring participants’ awareness to this and ask participants to give suggestions and advice on actions that can be implemented swiftly.

Yes

234238239240241242The dialogue was a comprehensive exploration of food systems covering the five Action Tracks. The focus was on the developing countries and the dialogue studied how the Finnish actors could support partners in South in the transition process of food systems. The event was used to bring awareness on the challenges that food systems in developing countries face, how diverse the situation can be, and to identify game changing ideas. The dialogue complemented the Finnish national dialogue, which was held in the beginning of April and the national convenor facilitated the organization of the event. Among the participants, we had representatives of NGOs, ministries, private sector, researchers but also journalists. FFD made an effort to invite people who have practical experience from the field and having worked with smallholders in the south, to ensure that the debate could be taken from the global figures to grassroot level issues. In a developed country like Finland, many people don’t think about where their food comes from, what kind of challenges farmers, especially, in developing countries face and how our consumption affects food systems. It is easy to go to the supermarket and buy any type of food at any time of the year. Dynamics, risk levels and what it can mean to a household or even to a country, is not well understood. However, farmers in developing countries are on the forefront of challenges caused by climate change. Whether we talk about having access to food or to being able to produce enough food, are two sides of a coin. While not taking a stand on the need for national food sovereignty, both the possibility to look for solutions for enhancing purchasing power to buy food or to enhance productivity allowing farmers to provide for themselves, were debated. While the debate on food systems in Finland is strongly focused on dietary choices and on the linkages between the consumption in Finland its consequences, in the south the questions are very different. Food waste happens at the different stage of the value chain, mainly in field and in storages. Animals are not only kept for meat or dairy but they have many other functions within a household.235238239240241242244246249251More discussion is needed in order to create viable solutions for the challenging topic. FFD will host more webinars related to food systems to continue the discussion. Topics will be more focused and will concentrate on a specific field such as nature positive food production or the role of forests in food production. Main findings of this webinar include the following: (1) Cultural methods and norms should be respected and used as a foundation when looking for a transition in food systems. (2) The role of schools can be pivotal in providing nutritious meals to children but also educating children on sustainable food production and systems. (3) Trade and legal policies should support sustainable and ecological production. (4) Supermarkets and retailers could have a strong role in helping consumers to make sustainable consumption decisions, but they need to be supported by other actors and lean on predictable rules. (5) If we want lasting change, the process needs to start at the grassroot level and be gradual to be effective. (6) Local and nature positive production should be favored but some products will still need to be imported because it’s impossible to produce everything locally and export revenues are important for many countries. (7) The proportion of plants in diet needs to be promoted but this doesn’t exclude animal husbandry which has multiple roles for many households. (8) Smallholders should get organized to have more support, more resilience and have a stronger position in food systems. (9) Co-operation between actors within food systems (research institutions, companies, farmers, government) should be increased to build practical solutions. (10) Increasing women’s resilience via transformative approaches that strengthen women’s confidence, knowledge and skill, relations and improve their rights to earn livelihoods (11) Youth’s engagement in agriculture should be promoted via a decent income and increased access to technology, digital tools and mechanization to ensure decent income. In particular, the webinar stressed the need to support locally tailored solutions which are based on the understanding of local context, supported and promoted by actors which have organized themselves, while taking into account the needs of vulnerable groups or groups with special needs such a women and youth. Many important aspects came to light through group discussions and they highlighted the complexity of global food systems.236238The discussion was organized through the following questions: (1) How to ensure access for all to sustainably produced food? (2) How to ensure that everyone can afford (sustainably) produced food? (3) What is the role of development / humanitarian work now and in the future? As the discussion started, the group pointed out that in order to avoid confusion or misunderstandings, it’s important to clarify the terms: food security vs food safety. Even though we have a wide array of information regarding nutritious food, problems regarding access to nutritious food still exist and need to be identified. Lack of nutritious food may be caused by poor soil that does not contain important minerals or iodine. Along the same lines, vitamin deficiencies can be caused by poor diet. Within households, the level of food security can vary, which is a reminder that the nutritious needs of the most vulnerable groups, such as pregnant women, children and the sick, should be focused on. They are often neglected due to their inferior position in society, lack of influence and lack of knowledge. Understanding local traditions is important as food is linked to culture. These traditions should be valued and their continuation should be strengthened while adjusting for towards more sustainable food systems. Because children spend a lot of time at school, school meals are an essential part of strengthening children’s nutrition. In addition, role of the school, for example through home economics and school gardens, can affect the food security of the whole household as children learn how to grow crops and understand the importance of a healthy and nutritious diet. Advice and extension should be provided to everyone on safe and nutritious food. Training of trainers, for example through universities or organizations, can play a key role in sharing knowledge and best practices. The group called for a stronger focus of development policy on supporting food security and related interdisciplinary research. Support should be directed towards long term social safety nets instead of short-term humanitarian aid. NGOs in developed countries should use their direct connections with communities in developing countries to look for viable solutions together.236239The discussion started with the question on how to find balance between safe and nutritious food and environmental planetary capacity. The group discussed how enough protein can be secured in diets, especially in poorer countries, where diets are more plant-based. Increasing vegetables in diets might be easier and more accepted as a narrative than requesting people to reduce meat. Both malnourishment and obesity need action. Discussion continued and centered around who should be kept accountable for our consumption – consumers or legislation? It was felt that consumers shouldn’t solely be accountable for sustainable consumption. Trade, food industry and legal policies should also play a role in ensuring more sustainable consumption patterns. This would help consumers with their consumption decisions and ensure that they can choose food that has been produced in a sustainable and ecological way. Politics, for example EU’s deforestation legislation, could play a role in mitigating negative effects of consumption. On the other hand, it is challenging to filter out simple, comparable metrics from a complex food system when forming a basis for consumer consumption decisions. Of all the products that cause deforestation, EU’s share is 36%. On the other hand, it is estimated that the consumption in the EU is responsible for around 10% of tropical deforestation. Food losses occur in different parts of the food system in different parts of the world. Smooth logistics and market connections are in a key role in reducing food waste in the northern hemisphere and in the south. Harvesting, handling and storage improvements are needed, especially in the south, to reduce losses. Poverty and food insecurity are closely linked. The group also discussed the role of culture and farm animals in different countries. Culture impacts food and consumption decisions. Farm animals have an important role, for example in East-Africa where they are financial safety nets. Keeping small farm animals is important especially for women in terms of supporting their economic independence and domestic food safety net. It is important to note that measures should be implemented to promote sustainable and climate positive animal husbandry practices. In addition, the group discussed how to increase knowledge and communication at the grassroot level. In order to engage farmers in sustainability, the change process must be subtle. Gradual processes which advance by small steps carry further than major changes introduced suddenly. Improving production is central in mitigating deforestation. This should be achieved without impoverishing the soil. Lastly, the growing global population is straining food systems. Population growth should be slowed down by educating women and girls and increasing awareness of family planning and contraception methods.236240The group structured its discussion into the following topics: (1) A linked global food system, (2) Food production and producers in the global south, (3) The need for knowledge, skills and education, (4) Consumers and international trade. The group noted that local production is generally more sustainable than importing products but it is difficult to produce everything locally. Some crops and food items will still need to be imported due to local conditions not being suitable for some crops. It has to be borne in mind that local production doesn’t always equal sustainability and in many countries it has led to soil impoverishment. Nevertheless, local production and food systems have a key role in many regions. Effects of developed countries’ consumption in developing countries were recognized and the group thought about how we can ensure global environmental sustainability and food safety. One should pay attention to what is produced and how it is produced in order to save natural resources and species. For example, could new species replace rice, and could animal protein be replaced with plant-based protein? Encouragement towards agroecological and other environmentally friendly methods should be increased in order to reduce environmental damage. These are often location-based and require strong know-how to invest in. As any change in methodology is a potential risk for the farmer, the change processes must be supported and de-risked for sustained transition to take place. It’s important to increase know-how and peer support between north and south as well as between southern partners. Practical advice and involving farmers in trialing new methods are essential in the change process. The key role of women as food producers in the south is to be highlighted and their training and extension is to be increased. Whereas women tend to produce crops for local consumption, men are more interested in growing highly profitable vegetables. Women tend to make decisions on what kind of food a family eats (local or imported) and that’s why it would be important to educate especially women on sustainable production methods and healthy nutrition. Increasing communication and involving farmers globally in discussions would be important in achieving changes. Education and communication regarding food systems should also be increased in developed countries so that consumers are aware of food related issues. Sustainable production is linked to many other development questions and inequality: women’s status, land ownership and resource availability. As previously stated, reducing inequality and poverty as well as changing food systems to become more climate resilient are part of the same process. The group suggested that global trade and value chains should support nature-friendly production. The environmental impact of a product/food item should be reflected on its price. At the global level, a shift to a more plant-based diet should be encouraged and the Western diet should shift towards more environmentally friendly and sustainable food so that food security could be achieved elsewhere. This, however, doesn’t exclude animal production because it has an important and diverse role in the south. The group believes that Fairtrade has managed to support local, social sustainability and thus they were wondering if similar systems would have the potential to support environmental sustainability as well?236241The group identified many challenges in the present food systems including: i) challenges for smallholders to develop their practices due to lack of knowledge, services, small plots and women's position; b) lack of support in food chains such as quality of inputs, lack of processing, storages, energy solutions; b) weakness of governments to support the sector through legislation and law enforcement; and c) weakness of private sector actors to provide services and finance. Especially in the south, legislation, regulations and their enforcement do not support the system and even less its transition towards enhanced sustainability. Corruption hampers development and transition to a better functioning food systems. Weak supply chains, low level of expertise, low productivity, production and product quality, lack of inputs and low level of technology also hinder development. Smallholders need development training, advise, innovation, finance and market information services. Many agricultural projects focus on farmers and their production and productivity. Without processing industry and more developed markets, improving production and quality doesn’t change the system. Action needs to be taken on the systems as a whole and competence development is necessary on all levels. It’s important to increase jobs opportunities in the whole food system, not just in farming. Project support that progresses in 3-5-year cycles doesn’t give enough support for long-term change. Smallholders should organize themselves, for example into cooperatives, to have a united voice, support each other and gain a stronger position in the food chain. Women should be given special consideration and preconditions to strengthen their livelihoods. However, cooperatives are not always equal or inclusive and their position may depend on political actors. As a solution, the group proposed cooperation among food system actors (research institutions, companies, farmers, government institution) to resolve prevailing and concrete challenges in a process where every actor brings in their own expertise and point of view. Legislation and global regulation aiming for private sector due diligence will enhance decent livelihood possibilities and wellbeing of the ecosystems in the global south. Multinational enterprises could have a role in solving the problem. Funding was proposed to enable spontaneous cooperation aiming at product development necessary for a stronger market position, and to contribute to the long-term development process of smallholders. The main suggestions are summarized below: - Strengthen smallholders’ formation into groups and organizations that support resilience of all the members equally. - Support transformative approaches that strengthen women’s confidence, knowledge and skills, relations and transform structures that withhold gender-based discrimination and improve their rights to earn livelihood. - Long term cooperation among actors within food systems (research institutions, companies, farmers, government) to improve quality and productivity of farming, access to productive inputs, product development and food safety, and to promote industrialization. - Legislation and global policies based on measurable outcomes. Big enterprises like MNEs could be involved also through mandatory due diligence legislation - Financing directed to cooperation and local product development as well as to the development process of smallholders. - Finance instruments that advance practical problem solving, development and enable long-term multi-actor cooperation236242The group started the discussion on the different dimensions of resilience (social, economic, infrastructure, natural resources and human skills). Cooperatives were seen as promoters of equality, know-how and extension. They also enhance stability and participation increases wellbeing. The role of women and youth was raised as an important factor in increasing resilience. Women need to be informed about their rights and their resilience needs to be increased. In order to attract young people to the food sector, a decent income and livelihood should be secured. Youth engagement could be enhanced through digitalization and options in food system providing for decent income. The group also considered efficiency and small-scale production as a means for more resilient production but there’s not enough land for everyone. Small-scale production is easier to control and divides the risk and reward among a larger pool of producers. Diversification was seen important for resilience, but it was noted that market demand is more specialized and focuses on single products. Currently only 1.7% of climate financing reaches smallholders and thus the group suggested that more climate financing should trickle to the producer level. If financing was increased on the producer level, smallholders’ and food systems’ resilience would increase. Farmers could come up with better solutions against the effects of climate change and increase food security. Development of better food storage methods and facilities was mentioned as a way to avoid food spoilage and to reduce waste. If food could be stored for a longer period, it would allow for better food security and less vulnerability to climate related hazards. The group also discussed the role of energy and water and their key position for resilience. It’s important to understand the different actors and their dynamics. Aspects such as land ownership, collateral land use, local solutions, and the power of big companies surfaced as factors that should be taken into consideration. Sustainable solutions need to be based on local solutions and local ownership.237The role of farm animals and diets brought up diverse views. Whereas one group promoted a plant-based diet, another group brought up the varying roles of farm animals in different countries. Whereas in developed countries, farm animals are often seen as meat (beef, pork, chicken) or providers of food such as milk or eggs, in Eastern Africa cattle are seen more as pets or financial safety nets. Therefore, reducing cattle in cultures and countries where they represent more than meat, may be difficult. Nevertheless, even if cattle and other farm animals play different roles in different cultures, it would be good to seek sustainable and environmentally friendly solutions to keeping cattle and other farm animals. Practical solutions could be formed when exchanging ideas with the farmers on the grassroot level in developing countries. Another discussion was on how nature-based production methods should be defined, by whom and which actors should be involved in this process. This part of the dialogue will be continued later. Finally, there was some debate on what kind of legislation for due diligence processes is relevant and how this system could be built so that it would provide comparable and verifiable information without becoming too expensive. There was a fear that a transparent and verified system would become too pricey and the costs and extra work would be carried by smallholders.

2021-05-18 13:41:48205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/14566/149

270118800198027000000903030030000000340110900001620

The third national dialogue was held on April 28, 2021 to gather public opinions in order to establish directions for sustainable food system policy prior to the UN food system summit scheduled for this September. Total 27 people, including representatives of farmers unions, consumers organizations, food industries, NGOs, government officials, public institutions and specialists from academia participated.Total 27 people, including representatives of farmers unions, consumers organizations, food industries, NGOs, government officials, public institutions and specialists from academia participated.

Yes

234239240249The dialogue mainly focused on “sustainable food production and consumption” such as achieving carbon neutrality and responding to climate change, expanding environmentally sustainable food production, and establishing sustainable local food system.235239240249Regarding 'carbon neutrality and climate change’, the needs for reducing food wastes to solve the global hunger problem and to practice carbon neutrality was suggested. Also, It was suggested to replace fossil fuels used in the agricultural production process with renewable energy and to convert livestock manure into energy. Especially, the importance of practicing carbon neutrality in the livestock industry was emphasized. Regarding the ‘expanding the environment-friendly agriculture and livestock industry’, the policy support for the expansion of environment-friendly agriculture was demanded, and in this regard, the expansion of public food procurement and public meal service, and the establishment of environment-friendly agriculture complex were suggested. The importance of environment-friendly consumption was also emphasized. In order to promote the environment-friendly consumption, the expansion of education to build trust and consensus on the environment-friendly consumption was suggested. To build sustainable food system in the regional level, the needs for promoting youth farmers and securing basic income for farmers were suggested. Also, the importance of providing adequate settlement conditions for rural communities and securing access to food for the elderly was emphasized. In addition, the needs for strengthening agricultural accident insurance to secure sustainability, introducing a food consumption expiration date labeling system, and fostering regional experts on building a sustainable local food system were also discussed.

2021-05-18 21:30:23204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/12784/7998113137194

These dialogues are organized by a coalition of Faith Based Organizations (FBOs) who agreed upon an internal set of principles. Those principles included respect for one another's beliefs and traditions. Commitment to elevating human rights. Being open to difference. Resolving conflict through mediated dialogue. Amplifying underrepresented voices. We consciously chose speakers committed to community development and principles of justice and equity in their work. We committed to multi-stakeholder inclusivity and highlighting the complexity of problems and the solutions. Our dialogues are globally diverse, bring together multiple stakeholders, have multi-faith representation, feature Indigenous voices throughout, and privilege the voices of front line communities.

NoWe created a hybrid dialogue that took the core elements of multi- stakeholder, global participants and thought provoking questions and scaled it down . Rather than focus on a single action track, we created dialogues for each of the 5 Action Tracks. The scaled down dialogues allowed for robust conversation amongst the participants. We designed them so that there would be opportunities for different points of view, points of divergence and of course emergence. We, in our way, hopefully created a platform for dialogue where people come from different traditions, religious belongings, countries, industries, and ultimately points of view for how the food system needs to transform. There was no disagreement that things must change but the why and how of that change differed for all of the participants. This we believe to be the most important part - that there is no single solution and that any solutions that are created must be culturally and geographically appropriate, and meet people as people rather than as commodities or numbers on a page. True change happens in a society due to shifts in values and worldview. The world is on a precipice of such a shift as more and more are becoming acutely aware of the climate crisis and the impacts of adding another 3 billion people by 2050. Tensions are rising and violence is happening but so too are efforts for collaboration and peacemaking. Our discussion groups are much smaller but we have created spaces for the grassroots to be in conversation with the grasstops. Change can only happen when we listen and learn from one another in spaces that are egalitarian and democratic so we have tried to create such a space in our dialogues.

234238239240241243244247249251The focus of this dialogue was an exploration of Action Track 2, Healing the Earth, Healing our Bodies, focusing on shifting to sustainable consumption patterns. The panelists represented broad, diverse voices from the food system: Taiwanese Buddhist physician, Somali Muslim female farming activist, Norwegian Catholic WHO senior strategist, Indigenous grandmother and African-American Reverend. The panelists had a rich dialogue that resulted in three main themes: The connection between science and faith: although they are traditionally seen at odds, the panelists offered that science and faith reinforce one another and their blending can actually create positive outcomes. Different religious traditions promote certain foods, mainly plant-based, that science is now showing has significant health benefits on a molecular and macro (organ-system) level. Our existence as humans is dependent on the web of life that ultimately provides our food. Faith/Indigenous traditions provide the moral/compassion argument while science provides the physical, tangible data to respecting our role in the natural world and shifting our consumption patterns. “God is calling on us to make decisions for good [. . .] to live to our full potential. When the body was created, God did it with the intent to nourish it through fruits and vegetables. Science proves this too. Instead of those two models fighting, we can blend them.” One Health: the current food system has separated the origins of our food from our consumption, where we are not aware of the farmers growing the food, the farmworkers that collect our food and the people who prepare our meals (e.g, processed and packaged foods). We are disconnected from our food and our spiritual connection to it. Indigenous and pastoral communities have long, rich histories of connecting with the land, of connecting their children and grandchildren with love for the land and ultimately spiritually connecting with the food as having its own role to play in our food systems. That role has either a positive or negative impact on our health. When companies focus more on making profits and communities are disconnected from the food, trade-offs are made that compromise the health of the land (e.g, destructive farming practices) and the health of people (e.g, increase in non-communicable diseases) “Unless we make real changes in the forces we are unleashing as humanity on earth, on its biophysical systems, the interplay of the web of life, it will get out of control and we won’t be able to stop runaway changes to continue life and our future on this planet.” Reclaiming the food narrative: food is an integral part to our religious and worldly narratives as human beings. From indigenous and pastoral communities, there was a certain relationship and tradition with food that respected the local environment and planet while maintaining human health. However, with the shift to current food system models, there are a few corporations that control the production, processing and distribution of food, with the main goal of profit maximizing. As a result, policies are reflective of these corporations' interests where scientifically unhealthy food is subsidized and cheaper than healthy foods. The actual consumer has no agency over their food and therefore no meaningful narrative of their relationship to the food they are choosing to consume, which can either be life sustaining or life-robbing. “The narrative of how we are as a people in terms of our health and wellbeing is linked to the health and wellbeing of the larger world"235238239240242243244245247249251The dialogue highlighted serious realities and gaps in the current food system. These will be discussed based on the main themes of the dialogue: The connection between science and faith: one major finding was the lack of awareness of health impacts of food and how our current behaviors impact the larger food system amongst community members and religious faith leaders. For example, in pastoral communities in Kenya, imams (faith leaders) discuss certain aspects of Qur’anic text, like prayers or fasting, but do not discuss more global issues like our relationship to food as beings on this planet. As a result, the community does not see a religious connection to the food or to the science behind it. By involving the imams as stakeholders and educating them on healthy food practices and behaviors, they can see that the Qur’an, which promotes healthy, plant-based foods, is not in conflict with the science behind healthy foods. In the Catholic tradition, there isn’t a direct understanding of traditions with their inherent relationship to food as a vessel to God. The story of the Eucharist reflects the story of life in a variety of forms. When you are eating the wafer or drinking wine, you are basically in direct communication with God who is infused in that form. These examples show how religious/faith leaders are key stakeholders in awareness building of healthy food behaviors for communities. One Health: another major finding was the increasing prevalence of noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) throughout the world and how they are directly related to food consumption. One important stakeholder is hospital systems. Physician researchers in Taiwan have influenced their healthcare system on the scientific benefits of plant-based diets and have successfully incorporated healthier food options for patients. In indigenous communities, major stakeholders are teachers and school systems. When teachers and school staff were involved in a project to start gardening on the grounds, there was a change in mindset amongst teachers/staff, students and the broader community as to why food was valuable and valuable within their indigenous culture. Not only does the integration of healthier food options improve outcomes in NCDs, like diabetes and heart disease, but the practice of shifting to more plant-based foods has a direct effect on decreasing greenhouse gas emissions that impact climate change. Climate change was discussed as an external factor on the food system that needs to be recognized and addressed. Reclaiming the food narrative: the other major finding was the need for gratitude and spiritual connection to food and food systems. Although it is important to focus on the commercial interests of food companies and practical methods to introduce plant-based diets, it was discussed amongst all five panelists how food as a sacred entity and gift is missing from current food practices. Without this integral emotional perspective on food, the flaws in the food system will not be solved. Education and Public Awareness: caught through all of the major findings was the recognition of major communication gaps for healthy eating. One speaker reflected on how being overweight was a sign of success in more rural and pastorali communities whereas being skinny and in shape caused alarm and concerns over poor health. Other speakers reflected on the problems of the overabundance of advertising by major corporations and agribusinesses that flood the market with disinformation that confuses consumers over what is and what isn't healthy. Without regulations or mandates on advertising it is hard to win the information battle being waged on health and consumption. Access and Subsidization: True to rural, urban, and otherwise economically disadvantaged areas, accessing healthy affordable food is a significant challenge. Many poor communities in developed countries rely on cheap fast food and ultra-processed foods as their primary food sources. These products are cheap due to large subsidies granted to animal protein producers, sugar producers, and grain producers. It makes these foods artificially cheap whereas wholesome healthy organic fruits and vegetables receive no subsidies which force the consumer to pay the whole cost which makes it too expensive for many.236238239243244248The connection between science and faith: Focus on education and awareness-building of local communities. Although the current food system is a global problem, if we focus on local communities and stakeholders, we can improve the health of humanity collectively, one community at a time. Food is such an integral part of our lives, that it is too easy to forget about its details. Having a local focus that connects individuals with their farming practices, food preparation skills and connecting intergenerationally (e.g., children, grandchildren), a more personal relationship develops with the food. Food is seen as a commodity instead of a gift. Progress can be assessed by the relationships made and regular follow-up with different community members to assess their food consumption behaviors. Anticipated challenges are unwillingness to change behavior and inadequately applying theories of change. These models will need to be community-specific that are also cultural competent. Incorporating religious/faith leaders into discussions: By including religious/faith leaders into discussions about how the faith is consistent with science that is currently catching up with data and research projects, you can reveal that there is no conflict between science and faith. Faith/Indigenous leaders have a way to connect to people on an emotional level. They can help connect people with the moral and compassion argument to respecting food, the planet and natural world that provides that food and ultimately changing consumption patterns. Progress can be assessed through the number of faith/indigenous leaders connected with and the number of sermons/talks given educating on food consumption behaviors. Anticipated challenges are those religious/faith leaders who are resistant to science education.236238239240243245246One Health: Paris agreement for food: the upcoming UN Food Summit is about mobilizing humanity around building a new narrative around food and bringing in solutions from all sectors (e.g., government, private sector, civil society, faith-based organizations, indigenous communities). However, a Paris agreement for food that consists of benchmarks and policy directives will be needed. This will consist of many dialogue sessions, white papers and generating reports of country-level challenges and solutions to assess progress. Anticipated challenges are political and business will to make meaningful changes in consumption, such as advocating for decreased meat consumption. Influencing policymakers: there are corporations that are currently profiting off of the food system as it is now. This is through government subsidies awarded to particular food industries, like animal livestock. However, these corporations have greater abilities to lobby and advocate for their business agenda and promotion of their food products. However, local communities need to mobilize and lobby their policymakers to educate them on the realities of these food policies on the ground and in the healthcare system. This includes black/brown and indigenous communities. Progress can be assessed through advocacy training sessions and number of meetings made with policymakers. Anticipated challenges are the financial interests from companies that will influence decision makers.236238239240243244246247249250251Reclaiming the food narrative: a) Subsidies for healthy foods: the current food system subsidizes livestock and therefore meat consumption. If fruits and vegetables production was provided with government subsidies, the consumer would not have to pay higher prices for healthier foods. By making the playing field between food options more level and fair, corporations can have less ability to influence the narrative around what food should be and what foods should be promoted. Indigenous communities were the first communities on our lands and have traditions that respect the land and environment while maintaining healthy lives. These voices need to be raised in order to meaningfully improve our food systems. There will be challenges from corporations who benefit from these subsidies. b) Transitioning to a plant-based diet: The world is consuming insane amounts of animal proteins. The future of food systems can and should maintain a level of meat consumption but one that is significantly pared down. Some communities and cultures, for instance the Gwich'in in Alaska, rely on caribou and other Arctic animals to sustain them during the long winters. They need to eat meat to survive. Someone in Mumbai or NYC or Sao Paulo does not need to eat meat three times a day. Animal proteins, palm oil, and cane sugar are some of the largest drivers of biodiversity loss and the largest contributors to NDCs. To preserve human and planetary health our food systems must transition to be majority plant based that relies on a wide diversity of fruits, vegetables, and grains that are culturally and bioregionally appropriate. c) Awareness - there is insufficient awareness in the puyblic sphere of the connection between human health and planetary health. For instance, most consumers are unaware of the biodversity loss associated with animal proteins. In order to change consumption patterns there must be increased education and awareness campaigns to connect environmental destruction and climate change to food systems and human health.237No major areas of divergence to report

2021-05-19 01:07:48204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/8835/132

39172838311322531112117721311131

The principles of engagement we focused on are Act with Urgency and Be Respectful. The 2022-2025 timeframe provides us with urgency as 2022 is next year and we are readying our strategies to be implemented. The principles were not read out or communicated to all participants and were used as internal work guidelines only.Our FSSD focused on Act with Urgency and Be Respectful as we decided to target on 1 x SDG - this being SDG12 -Responsible Production and Consumption and Action Track 2 – shift to sustainable consumption patterns. Supporting evidence for this particular focus is due to acknowledging the significance of two global speeches: 1. Prince Charles’s speech which he delivered at the World Economic Forum 50 year anniversary in January 2020, (just before Covid-19 hit the world), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooPRKuxPXkk and 2. David Suzuki’s speech which he delivered at the 1992 UN Earth Summit held in Brazil in 1992 – The declaration of Interdependence: David Suzuki - Declaration of Interdependence - UN Earth SUMMUIT 1992 Rio- Brazil – 050421. Being respectful is the only way interdependence is going to work and consumer led and voluntary strategies will also work. We are suggesting citizens not be called or named consumers anymore, but instead we shift to being called what we all are 'caring people'.No.

Yes

234238239240243244247248251Please see our full report entitled: Independent Aotearoa FSSD - reported May 2021. Our theme connects Food Systems to Environmental Degradation and Climate Change effect. Faster lines of awareness and communication are needed if we are to beat down the barriers of progress to reduce the threat of going over the 1.50C threshold by 2030. This has become even more urgent since learning in April 2021, that the Amazon Basin is now no longer, solely a carbon sink (absorbs carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere) but now too is an emitter (releases Methane and Nitrous-Oxide). The approach decided upon, therefore for our March 2021 dialogue was to establish the 3 x key outcomes/needs identified from the Aotearoa June 2020 FFSD, and try to move forward from there. 1. Food Waste Reduction - how to use the international 'Target, Measure, Act' approach 2022-2025. 2. Better Nutrition for Better Health - can we conduct a National Nutrition Survey between 2022-2025 as one has not been done since 2008? 3. Food Sovereignty - how do we feed ourselves and ignite community connectedness as presently the NZ National Food Strategy is being written and Māori growing techniques like Hua Parakore are to be embraced.235239240243244247Please see our full report entitled: Independent Aotearoa FSSD - reported May 2021 The main findings are below and we will focus on how to begin these in 2022 at the June 2021 FSSD. 1. Food Waste Reduction - how to use the international 'Target, Measure, Act' approach 2022-2025. 2. Better Nutrition for Better Health - can we conduct a National Nutrition Survey between 2022-2025 as one has not been done since 2008? 3. Food Sovereignty - how do we feed ourselves and ignite community connectedness as presently the NZ National Food Strategy is being written and Māori growing techniques like Hua Parakore are to be embraced.236239243244246247248Please see our full report entitled: Independent Aotearoa FSSD - reported May 2021. Food Waste: “How do we get key players in the food supply chain to adopt the internationally recognised Target, Measure and Act approach to reduce food waste in Aotearoa between 2022-2025? Key points from Facilitator’s Official Feedback Form Table 1 identified multiple motivations to reduce food loss and waste, including: social (people are hungry yet we are throwing away food); environmental (carbon emissions from food waste are significant – 8% globally) and economic (business motivations and opportunities in alternative markets). A number of actors (Government, Business and Consumers) needed to play their role to achieve the collective aim of Sustainable Development Goal Target 12.3. 1. Government • An agreed definition on what is “food waste” • Measure food waste to create a national baseline and track progress • Cross-collaboration within government departments: MfE, MPI and others 2. Business • Funding and signatories for a business Voluntary Commitment • Maintenance of profitability • Business case study successes highlighted and celebrated 3. Community • Funding and support for consumer awareness campaigns • Education in schools • Urban farming and composting developed and funded Our contribution to international efforts to reduce food waste was recognised: Call to Global Action of Food Loss and Waste, 24th Sept, 2020 Collective Aim Priority stakeholders and actions for a business Voluntary Commitment will be identified in June 2021 in preparation to seek funding to be able to ‘Act’. This topic could be introduced to be discussed at the NZ State FSSD.236238239242243Please see our full report entitled: Independent Aotearoa FSSD - reported May 2021. Nutrition: Between the years of 2022-2025 how do we get the most accurate data on what the people of Aotearoa are eating, where they’re eating and what the challenges are to ensure that all solutions are focused to improve food security and nutrition. How so we ensure solutions are all data-driven and measurable? Note: such evidence based work has not been done in NZ since 2008. Key points from Facilitator Official Feedback Form 1. Clear data showing regionalized differences across New Zealand This includes data on what people are eating, how it is grown and where it is from. It’s important to look at what consumers want and to have data that takes the full food system into account. This means a broad set of data that considers differences and represents regions across New Zealand. 2. Able to act in a more focused way Having baseline data will enable solutions to be put in place that are realistic, tailored to that community/region and measurable. Data provides insight and in Aotearoa, local insight is key. There would be increased transparency in what people and groups are doing around the country, not needing to reinvent the wheel but to learn from each other. 3. Tailored education strategies In order to support the children of Aotearoa we need to ensure we have data on what and how this new generation is eating. Organizations that provide education to children around food would have better insight from new data on this generation and it would allow them to provide tailored education and measure the effectiveness. A large scale piece of work, such as the National Nutrition Survey, is likely government led. There has been work lobbying for a new survey for 10+ years with no movement. It is a large undertaking that would be unlikely to deliver within 3 years. There was divergence as to whether the government would take action in this area or if it needs to be done independently. Collective Aim Priority ‘Targets’ and ‘Measurements’ shall be decided in June 2021 in preparation to seek funding to be able to ‘Act’ and to begin talks for this diverse stakeholder group to be included in the NZ National Food Strategy. This topic could be introduced to be discussed at the NZ State FSSD. Can we utilise the 2023 Census to swiftly aid our kaupapa/objective too?236238239240241242243244245246247251Please see our full report entitled: Independent Aotearoa FSSD - reported May 2021. Food Sovereignty: “Between the years of 2022-2025, how do we activate, enable, connect and charge-up communities to create some resilience in the face of the significant change we face?" Key points of success from Facilitator Feedback Form: Success looks like highly visible Food Sovereignty projects, which inspire others to take a journey towards self-determination. Visibility is a connecting term! Success looks like local food being feed to our tamariki/children, including locally grown grains. Commercially viable businesses which have set up their own meat processing factories that are on iwi land, run by our own people and producing our food for the lunches. Success looks like the continuing proliferation of these initiatives that we are all connected to. Little farms, food forests, compost piles, everywhere. Collective Aim: To be decided on between: 1. Communities on the ground have been doing pilots for some time – they know what works in their ecosystem. They can scale and are ready to go! But there is no pathway to the next point, no support or funding to get there. OR 2. Aotearoa is in the middle of a national roll out of the school lunch programme to influence food security – 215,000 children every day fed by the Government. Step 1 – get some healthy food in stomachs – how do we make this food from their own takiwā or area? Huge opportunity for transformation. OR both 1 and 2. combined into one initiative to serve both recognised needs. Table 3 will then be ready to prioritise ‘Targets’ and ‘Measurements’ to be decided by September, 2021 in preparation to seek funding to be able to ‘Act’ and to begin talks for this diverse stakeholder group to be included in the NZ National Food Strategy. This topic could be introduced to be discussed at the NZ State FSSD. Can we utilise the NZ 2023 Census to swiftly aid our kaupapa/objective too?237238239240241242243244247248Topic 1 Food Waste - Divergence Issues: - Many players are involved – with different underlying motivations. - Government needs to prioritise food waste reduction – especially climate change links - How do we prioritise the actions above? - Different levers are required at different stages of the food supply chain. - Much support to ensure the outcome is a Voluntary Commitment programme. It may otherwise be covered by regulation and legislation. This VC should adopt a collaborative approach. Lessons can be learnt from Sustainable is Attainable. Topic 2 Nutrition - Divergence Issues: A large scale piece of work, such as the National Nutrition Survey, is likely to be government led. There has been work lobbying for a new survey for 10+ years with no movement. It is a large undertaking that would be unlikely to deliver within 3 years. There was divergence as to whether the government would take action in this area or if it needs to be done independently. This issue will be tackled at the 2nd Independent June 2021 FSSD and also as Convener I am encouraging some topics be heard and worked on at the NZ State FSSD. Topic 3 Food Sovereignty - Divergence Issues: None were reported by the Facilitator in this instance, however these divergence issues need to be addressed: 1. Why is there no financial support from Govt or Local Bodies for initiatives that are already proving successful? 2. Will the National Food Strategy include stakeholder groups like these '3 wheel spoke dialogues' in this FSSD? 3. Food Sovereignty needs to have a clear definition to it vs Sovereign Māori so there is no confusion but infusion?

1 edit where the paragraph top of Pg 11 was misplaced via a cut and paste and is now correctly placed on Page 9 of the report as part of our Table 2's feedback. The paragraph starts: It’s important to take check on what knowledge there already is, maintain that knowledge and help future generations regain knowledge. The paragraph ends: This results in local solutions that fit within the full food system.2021-05-28 00:27:46https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Independent-Aotearoa-FSSD-FINAL-Report-May-2021.pdf

2021-05-19 11:11:31204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/7993/170

40102282317285713645228

1. Act with urgency - A key question that was consistently asked to all speakers as well as participants was one that related to urgency. This was, are we doing enough? and what can we do in order to ensure that change in the issues we face in the food system is expedited. 2. Commit to the summit - It was clearly indicated that all participants share, connect and collaborate in order to ensure that effectual change is realised. 3. Recognise complexity - The topic of the dialogue was specifically focused around this particular principle. How systems thinking can be used to effect change in the food system in South Africa. 4. Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity - Since the topic of the summit was revolved around systems thinking, it was imperative that we have speakers who were form various parts of the food system. This would directly translate in various stakeholders participating.1. Act with urgency - A key question that was consistently asked to all speakers as well as participants was one that related to urgency. This was, are we doing enough? and what can we do in order to ensure that change in the issues we face in the food system is expedited. 2. Commit to the summit - It was clearly indicated that all participants share, connect and collaborate in order to ensure that effectual change is realised. 3. Recognise complexity - The topic of the dialogue was specifically focused around this particular principle. How systems thinking can be used to effect change in the food system in South Africa. This laser-focused approach was deliberate as it ensured that the complexity of the food system in South Africa was recognised. 4. Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity - Since the topic of the summit was revolved around systems thinking, it was imperative that we have speakers who were form various parts of the food system. This would directly translate in various stakeholders participating. Speakers ranged from entrepreneurs to civil society organisations and even academia.

Yes

234238239240241242243246248249250Comprehensive exploration of food systems- Many of the problems we are facing in the food system are caused by society – by broken systems, poor governance, misguided incentives, and greed. We can’t just put tiny band-aids on these issues and think a bunch of start-ups are going to change these broken systems. The system itself needs to change. Entrepreneurs can catalyse those changes across public, private, and community networks, but they aren’t lone heroes who go out and do these things alone. They need teams behind them, and we need “intrapreneurs” and entrepreneurial thinkers in all roles across society. When this is done the path to impact becomes endless. It was therefore imperative that for the dialogues, an immense focus was placed on systems thinking and how all stakeholders in the food systems can explore systems thinking to achieve systematic change in the food system.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250(a) PROBLEM SEEKING Before we begin trying to solve the problems that we face in the food system in South Africa, we need to make sure we understand what the actual problems are. Moreso, the problems which are causing those said problems. This will help us ensure that we are actually solving and not further perpetuating the problem. (b) It was expressed that stakeholders need to dig deeper in whatever field they are working in to take time to discuss whether they are solving a problem or further perpetuating. To complete a further analysis of the problem at hand and understand the problems around the problem that need to be solved and furthermore, understanding all stakeholders in the problem. COLLABORATION Oftentimes, a particular issue that we face in the food system requires various solutions. One individual or organisation will not be able to provide all these solutions. It is therefore important to identify and collaborate the different actors needed to solve the problem. "Leave your egos and logos at the door". 3. APPLYING DIFFERENT APPROACHES We cannot unlock the full potential of our food system without collaboration. The food system is highly fragmented one where solutions are provided in silos. Collaboration is imperative in order for us to end the cycle where the same solutions are constantly provided. Cross-sector solutions should become the norm where government, ICT, financers, universities, entrepreneurs, etc. are working together at solving systematic issues. 4. Visiblity It is imperative to make systematic change visible. The benefits and successes of systematic collaboration should be made visible as it will inspire those who want to see a change in the food system to do so. Moreso, it will expose those who continue with the status quo and force them to change.

https://youtu.be/U_aLBL6Ovg0

2021-05-19 12:06:10204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/11634/203

48412229127214454502670470593615123553

Before organizing the Independent Dialogue «Different Routes – Similar Goals» in support of the 2021 Food Systems Summit, we worked out its concept. This concept was based on Dr. Kalibata's appeal: "Global food systems can only be truly transformed through a People's Summit." When creating the concept, we were inspired by the work of large international organizations and small communities, which locally implement, day after day, tasks that contribute to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. We were able to create a platform where they could meet and understand that despite the difference in the actions taken, we all strive to move in the same direction. We have ensured the participation of many parties, invited representatives of different countries. We have provided a respectful and meaningful dialogue, and we are not glossed over the problems, but on the contrary have attracted the attention to them.The fact that people from different countries and continents took part in the dialogue contributed to the awareness of the commonality of the problems. This made it possible to recognize that the complexity of food systems management is a challenge for all countries, but at the same time emphasized that the solutions, the ways of building these systems cannot be the same for everyone. Different natural conditions, different economic conditions require different approaches. Today, about a billion people worldwide suffer from chronic hunger, and at the same time, the current trend of unprecedented increases in food prices exacerbates poverty, unemployment, hunger and causes social unrest and political instability. A fragile economic recovery and high unemployment rates in many countries, as well as persistent hunger hamper efforts to achieve agreed sustainable development goals. The key factors affecting the deterioration of food security and malnutrition in all their forms are conflicts, extreme climatic conditions, economic shocks and the impacts of a pandemic. Experience has shown that there is no centralized program for the implementation of sustainable development. Both its content and its translation into practice require it to be negotiated or planned through intense dialogue and collective discussion embedded in management systems i.e. organizing all types of negotiations, consultations and exchange of information between government representatives, social partners or between social partners on issues of common interest related to economic and social policy.Should we use The Principles of Engagement in operating, developing and promoting Independent Dialogues? The answer to that is a definite YES! The Principles of Engagement will allow you to structure your work, to more accurately define the goals and objectives of your events. The Principles of Engagement help create a space for a free and respectful exchange of views, even by hostile parties.

Yes

234238239241242243244246247248249The main focus of the dialogue was aimed at restoring supply chains in the post-pandemic period and effectively integrating into these chains the most diverse producers from large companies to local farmers. It has been repeatedly emphasized that centralizing supply chain management is detrimental to efficiency to a large extent. At the same time, it was especially emphasized that it is necessary to put a person at the forefront of every action. Of particular interest in this regard were the speeches and remarks that touched upon both food security and the need to increase food production without harming the environment. In this regard, hopes were pinned on the development of IT management systems for agro-industrial production and product sales. The humanitarian component also got its sound when discussing the promotion of Food Banks as systems for effectively overcoming hunger, social protection and environmentally friendly solutions.235239241242243246247248249Among the findings it was pointed out that it is necessary to constantly monitor and analyze the state of the food systems and supply chains across countries and continents. New standards are needed in the training of specialists in this area. It has been repeatedly emphasized that education and science are cross-border in nature. It is necessary to create both international educational clusters and national laboratories and associations. These findings carry important messages for media policy makers. All of the above led to the conclusion about the need to create a new integration platform and an intellectual environment that will allow implementing new initiatives. In addition, the Russian office of FAO, supporting the need to enlighten and promote the ideas of the Summit, in the person of its director made a proposal to create the Institute of FAO Goodwill Ambassadors.236238239242243247248249ANDREY YU. BELYANINOV - Secretary General of the Eurasian Peoples' Assembly : "The success of the 2021 Food Systems Summit depends on the engagement of representatives from a wide variety of actors, organizations, movements and initiatives. The independent dialogue in support of the Summit, organized by the Eurasian Peoples' Assembly, is an open platform for finding solutions to real problems. Listen to each other; explore both synergies and divergences; collaborate to identify promising courses of action, welcoming different perspectives, forging new connections." Alexandra Ochirova, UNESCO Goodwill Ambassador, Deputy Secretary-General, Eurasian Peoples’ Assembly: "I believe that the issue of food security is one of the most important global development agendas and it applies to all countries and nations without exception, to every human being on the planet. In this regard, the global threats of hunger, poverty and disease existing today in many countries, on the one hand, and the vulnerability of methods of production and consumption of food worldwide, on the other hand, as well as imperfect functioning of food systems, limited natural resources and other environmental problems require new protocols of interaction between all spheres of human activity, between states, nations and public organizations to reform the existing national and global food systems in order to remove the existing threats to education, health and the economy, to human rights, life and health, to peace and safety worldwide. Practical decisions concerning all systemic changes in this area must proceed from the possibility of safe and sustainable development of a human being and society, the preservation of nations and of all mankind. These decisions must be moral and responsible." MR. RICHARD GILMORE - founder of the GIC Group, an international agro-industrial company with partner offices in Beijing, Sao Paulo, Quito, Moscow and Tel Aviv. Chairman of the nongovernmental organization «Global Forum on Food Safety»: "The pandemic and its after-effects underscore the need for a cultural shift in which both private and public sectors recognize the importance of food safety systems for future risk avoidance in our new normal world. If and when we transition to a ‘New Normal’, the stark threats to food systems and human health are real. So are the solutions, which depend on new technologies and a supportive policy environment for sustainable agriculture" Yulia Nazarova, president of The All-Russian Charity Foundation Foodbank Rus: "24 tons of distributed products, this is not only 2.5 thousand people who were fed during the week, but 12 tons of greenhouse gases that did not enter the atmosphere".237242248249The main areas of disagreement related to methods of solving common problems. Everyone agreed that even those countries that now look prosperous are not insured against a worsening situation.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Conсept-Note-FSS-Independent-Dialogue-Different-Routes-Similar-Goals.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Codex-Alimentarius_Karsybekova-in-English.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/PROGRAMME-INDEPENDANT-DIALOGUE-18052021.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Press-Release-Independent-Dialogue-in-Support-of-the-2021-Food-Systems-Summit.docxhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Dr.-Richard-Gilmore-GIC-Group.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Гармонизация-образования-и-науки-БалыхинМГ-2021-05-18-ENG-1.pdfhttps://fb.watch/5AIW-1yStU/

2021-05-19 16:55:39205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/14995/46

285167721226262

Este es el primero de una serie de diálogos que se tienen previstos en el país. En este espacio participaron las entidades que hacen parte de la Comisión Intersectorial de Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutricional, instancia encargada de coordinar las acciones que en esta materia se desarrollan en Colombia. No obstante, los diálogos subsecuentes incluirán otros actores para asegurar una discusión incluyente alrededor de los sistemas alimentarios. Dentro del diálogo, cada mesa de debate se organizó de manera tal que se favoreciera la participación de distintas entidades y la discusión intersectorial.El diálogo promovió el respeto hacia diferentes opiniones y puntos de vista, favoreció la participación de entidades públicas de distintos sectores relacionados con la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional; asimismo, los representantes de estas entidades generaron propuestas que apuntan a contribuir con el objetivo de la Cumbre sobre los sistemas alimentarios. El diálogo reconoció además la complejidad de los sistemas alimentarios, mediante el abordaje de los retos que este enfrenta en cada una de las Vías de Acción que propone la Cumbre.No por el momento.

Yes

234238239240241242244245246247249250251Antes del llevar a cabo el primer diálogo, el equipo de coordinación de los diálogos en el país identificó las acciones desarrolladas y retos a enfrentar para avanzar hacia sistemas alimentarios sostenibles como contribución al logro de la Agenda 2030. Dichos retos y acciones se analizaron desde cada una de las Vías de acción que propone la Cumbre sobre los Sistemas Alimentarios 2021. A partir del ejercicio de identificación previo, el primer diálogo se orientó a identificar acciones y retos adicionales, además de propuestas que contribuyeran en la construcción de la ruta, así como en la validación de la metodología y las temáticas a tratar en los diálogos subnacionales y nacionales subsecuentes. Por lo tanto, se contó con la participación de las entidades que conforman la Comisión Intersectorial de Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutricional – CISAN, como principal instancia para la coordinación de las acciones relacionadas con la Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutricional en Colombia. La participación de estas entidades tuvo como objetivo adicional establecer las contribuciones de cada entidad para enfrentar los retos hacia el logro de sistemas alimentarios sostenibles en el país.235238239240241242244245246247249250251Las acciones que viene adelantando el país están orientadas hacia las siguientes áreas: la eliminación del hambre y la malnutrición; el acceso, disponibilidad e inocuidad de los alimentos; el acceso a tierra y recursos productivos (en especial para los pequeños productores y la población campesina); el derecho a la alimentación; información, educación y comunicación en seguridad alimentaria y nutricional; la asociación y defensa de los consumidores/as; la gestión integral del cambio climático, la gestión de la biodiversidad, la prevención y reducción de las pérdidas y desperdicios de alimentos; el consumo sostenible; la promoción de las cadenas de valor locales y compras públicas de alimentos; la producción sostenible; la eliminación de la pobreza y las desigualdades; la resiliencia para la protección social, la reducción de riesgos a los más vulnerables (niños y niñas, mujeres, campesinos/as, migrantes), la gestión integral del riesgo de desastres, y la gestión de la pandemia por Covid-19. Los retos identificados fueron los siguientes: agricultura sensible a la nutrición; fortalecimiento de gobernanza del sistema agroalimentario; mejora nutricional de trabajadores agroalimentarios; fortalecimiento y participación comunitaria en toma de decisiones alrededor de la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional hacia el derecho humano a la alimentación; mejoramiento de cadena de transformación de alimentos; promoción de dietas saludables y sostenibles; fortalecimiento de cultura alimentaria local; promoción de ambientes y entornos alimentarios saludables y sostenibles; articulación de la Estrategia de información, educación y comunicación en seguridad alimentaria y nutricional como apuesta de país; implementación de la ley sobre compras locales de alimentos; agroecología y regeneración de ecosistemas y sistemas alimentarios; formalización e implementación de Política de pérdidas y desperdicios de alimentos; empoderamiento y participación de las mujeres y los jóvenes en los sistemas alimentarios; inclusión de grupos étnicos en los sistemas alimentarios sostenibles; trabajo digno en cadena agroalimentaria; aseguramiento y protección social en la ruralidad y vulnerabilidad; resiliencia de sistemas alimentarios en contextos humanitarios; mejora en calidad de asistencia alimentaria y nutricional en emergencias y su adaptación a los contextos.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Luego de realizar un primer ejercicio de mapeo de acciones y retos en torno a sistemas alimentarios en Colombia por parte del equipo de coordinación de los diálogos, se orientó la discusión en las mesas del primer diálogo hacia la identificación de acciones y retos adicionales, así como propuestas por parte de los participantes para enfrentar dichos retos. Si bien se recolectó información por cada Vía de acción, se hizo evidente que varias de las temáticas resultantes están inmersas en más de una Vía; lo que además permite una comprensión más amplia de los sistemas alimentarios y sus interrelaciones. Por lo tanto, a continuación se presentan los hallazgos obtenidos en el marco del diálogo: a) RETOS ADICIONALES: empleabilidad y generación de recursos económicos; impactos de los Tratados de Libre Comercio sobre la producción de alimentos en el país; implementación del plan de logística agropecuaria; implementación de buenas prácticas agrícolas y ganaderas; optimización del uso del suelo; continuar ampliando las coberturas de acceso a agua apta para consumo humano; reducción de las importaciones para disminuir impactos ambientales; recursos productivos para campesinos, grupos étnicos y mujeres; construcción de políticas desde el territorio; intermediarios en la cadena agroalimentaria; lograr que la agricultura se entienda como un enlace transversal a los tres pilares de desarrollo sostenible (económico, social y ambiental) y no sólo como un problema de optimización; fortalecer el relevo generacional en los pequeños productores del sector agropecuario (los pequeños productores son en su mayoría de edades avanzadas); fortalecer la producción de frutas y verduras para autoconsumo; articulación intersectorial e interinstitucional; promoción de mecanismos de coordinación alternativos en los mercados; promoción y adaptación territorial de las Guías Alimentarias Basadas en Alimentos; implementación del Programa de Alimentación Escolar acorde a los contextos territoriales y fomento de compras públicas locales para abastecerlo; articulación de los sistemas de producción con los consumidores/as finales; financiación de investigación con enfoque participativo; fortalecimiento de capacidades de los pequeños productores y campesinos; mejoramiento de infraestructura vial en zonas rurales; Educación Alimentaria y Nutricional en la ruralidad y en todo el sistema alimentario; fortalecer confianza institucional en los territorios; adaptación territorial de los programas y proyectos; implementación de economía circular; manejo adecuado de los recursos hídricos; enfoque agroecológico y sistémico de alimentación y nutrición; fortalecimiento de agricultura urbana y periurbana; capacitación y sensibilización de diferentes actores sobre Sistemas Alimentarios Sostenibles; influencia de los riesgos naturales en la situación alimentaria y nutricional; gestión del riesgo por desabastecimiento de alimentos; adaptación y mitigación del cambio climático y su efecto sobre sistemas alimentarios;236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251b) ACCIONES ADICIONALES: Prácticas sustentables y la articulación intersectorial e interinstitucional para tal fin; fortalecimiento de redes de comercialización internas; educación ciudadana sobre el cuidado del medio ambiente – consumo consciente y responsable; reconocimiento y dialogo con el enfoque diferencial y participativo; progresividad del Derecho Humano a la Alimentación; promoción del trabajo intersectorial para la implementación de políticas públicas planes y proyectos (Plan Nal. Rural del Sistema para la Garantía Progresiva del Derecho a la Alimentación, Política de pérdidas y desperdicios, Compras públicas); proteger y apoyar a las comunidades campesinas, étnicas, en especial a sus líderes, teniendo en cuenta la situación del país; fortalecimiento y apoyo a la economía local, familiar, campesina y comunitaria; fortalecer circuitos cortos de comercialización para programas sociales e institucionales de entrega de alimentos; fortalecer las acciones para integrar el riesgo agroclimático en la producción; lineamientos de seguridad alimentaria y nutricional en situaciones de emergencia; documentar los productos de la biodiversidad que aportan a la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional;236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251c) PROPUESTAS: gestionar diálogos internos para apoyar la participación de expertos técnicos; mirada integral del sistema alimentario, no fragmentar las acciones de política pública, trabajar en red con otras áreas del conocimiento desde la academia; reorientar los enfoques de formación académica para tener una visión más sistémica de lo agroalimentario y el Derecho Humano a la Alimentación; fortalecer la investigación en el país; diseñar programas y proyectos con las comunidades; incluir de forma transversal los efectos de la agrodiversidad y los transgénicos e invitar a expertos nacionales en el tema a participar de los diálogos; participación de los grupos étnicos en la ley de compras públicas; veedurías ciudadanas en la implementación de programas sociales; proyectos de extensión universitaria que promuevan la participación y el fortalecimiento de capacidades territoriales; atención a la comunidad migrante; diálogo social enfocado en los derechos de los niños, niñas y adolescentes; compartir experiencias con otros Estados y agencias del sistema de las NNUU para identificar y compartir buenas prácticas, con miras a mejorar el acceso, la disponibilidad e inocuidad de los alimentos; considerar los efectos de la pandemia sobre la situación alimentaria y nutricional de la población y su relación con el sistema alimentario como un tema transversal; tener en cuenta el componente demográfico y sus tendencias para calcular mejor la futura demanda de alimentos; promover a través de medios de comunicación institucionales el consumo de alimentos propios de las regiones, producidos a nivel local.237240244246Se solicitó revisar en detalle el abordaje que se dará a la agrodiversidad y agroecología en los diálogos siguientes.

2021-05-20 14:11:11204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/8643/203

123186431916062122815732118193131241136112381307

The Dialogue was a webinar related to aquatic foods and the food system summit action track 1 access to sustainable, safe and nutritious foods. We had two panels representing several parts of the globe and various professions along the food chain, both in action and high level. In panel one experts showcased possible solutions related to natural resources, nutrition, food safety. Panel two was a high level panel representing different issues including nutrition, aquatic food production, food summit and value chain knowledge. The panelists presented their view on the topic followed by a discussion in the panel. No group work was included, However, the presentations resulted in considerable activity among the audience in the chat and the Q/A box, in addition there was a questionnaire at the end of the seminar. The invitation and participation was global and various stakeholders joined the webinar. The participants were asked to provide information on where they were joining from. Europe dominated with 60% from this continent, followed by 22% from Asia and the Pacific, 14% from Africa, 3% from North America and 1% from Central and Latin America. The various action tracks are interconnected and the leadership of AT1 and 2 was presented at the webinar. The topics discussed were also related to the other action tracks.Specifically, the Dialogue was open to all stakeholders. Recognizing the complexity of aquatic food systems, the topics raised aimed to show-case possible solutions and involved discussion to promote the role of aquatic foods in the Food Systems Summit. There was high activity in among the participants (in the chat and Q/A box, and both panelists and audience answered questions. The webinar was a multi-stakeholder event with 20% from government, 18% NGO, 6% private sector, 37% from academia and research and 19% classified themselves as “other”.The time limit of the 90 minute webinar was adequate and allowed enough time for answering most of the questions from the audience. However, more time could be allocated for Q and A, or fewer speakers invited to the two panels.

NoIn the lead up to the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit, the Global Action Network - Sustainable Food from the Oceans and Inland Waters for Food Security and Nutrition will arrange a series of three Independent Dialogues in an effort to include aquatic foods as a key food source for food and nutrition security - bridging the Decade of Action on Nutrition, the Decade of Ocean Science and the Decade of Action to deliver on the Sustainable Development Goals. The events will be co-hosted by the Norwegian leadership of the Global Action Network and WorldFish. In this first dialogue, cross sectorial representatives, including high level, came together to showcase possible solutions and discuss important actions for food systems transformation with aquatic foods as part of the summit’s Action Track 1, which aims to ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all. The panels took a holistic approach by combining knowledge on different aspects of food security: access for all to sufficient, safe, nutritious foods, meeting dietary needs, food preferences, and discussing the key actions needed for aquatic foods to be part of the solution for sustainable food systems. The webinar was arranged in two sessions: the first showcasing possible solutions for transforming food systems with aquatic foods for food and nutrition security, and the second session on connecting research and policy; how do we scale up good solutions. Two polls were conducted to engage participants, and a post-event questionnaire was posted to receive feedback from the participants. Open-ended questions were included to enable participants’ to share their views. The audience was encouraged to partake actively in the chat and post questions in the Q&A box. Event Outreach and Stakeholder Engagement • 657 participants registered for the event and received an event recording and links to other learning materials. • 303 people tuned in live to the event, predominantly from Europe (60%), followed by Asia and the Pacific (22%), Africa (14%), North America (3%) and Central and Latin America (1%). • With a 46% attendance rate, participants were predominantly from Academia and Research (37%), followed by Government (20%), NGO or Not for Profit (18%), Private Sector (6%) and Others (19%). • Participants sent in a total of 46 questions, which were mostly answered during the live event by our panel speakers. • In the post-event survey, a majority of the participants said they enjoyed the webinar, gave an average rating of 8/10 and are interested in future webinars on the topic of food system transformation with aquatic foods.

234238243244246248249251In the lead up to the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit, the Global Action Network - Sustainable Food from the Oceans and Inland Waters for Food Security and Nutrition will arrange a series of three Independent Dialogues in an effort to include aquatic foods as a key food source for food security and nutrition - bridging the Decade of Action on Nutrition, the Decade of Ocean Science and the Decade of Action to deliver on the Sustainable Development Goals The aim of this webinar was to showcase important actions for aquatic foods to be a part of the solution to the food system summits action track 1 (access to sustainable, safe and nutritious food for all) and raise awareness on the importance of a cross sectorial approach. Combining knowledge on food composition data, nutrients, contaminants and dietary needs with knowledge on the role of sustainable aquatic foods in a sustainable diet, and present important actions for aquatic foods to become integrated in food and nutrition policies as part of sustainable and healthy diets. The outcome of the webinar will feed into the UN Food Systems Summit Action Track 1. The virtual dialogue brought together UN Member States representatives from ministries and other public institution that covered areas related to healthy oceans, sustainable seafood, food security, nutrition and health. Stakeholders such as private sector, civil society, including academic institutions, and regional and intergovernmental organisations could also attend. The program brough together actors from Government, UN Food System Action Track leaders, research institute directors and policy specialists to explore impactful aquatic food system initiatives led by research experts from around the world. The panel discussed innovative ways to connect research with policy and action to ensure aquatic foods are recognized as part of game-changing solutions in the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit. The panels took a holistic approach by combining knowledge on different aspects of food security: access for all to sufficient, safe, nutritious foods, meeting dietary needs, food preferences, and discussed key actions needed for aquatic foods to be part of the solution for sustainable food systems. . In this first dialogue, cross sectorial representatives, including high level, were gathered to showcase possible solutions and discuss important actions for food systems transformation with aquatic foods as part of the summit’s Action Track 1, which aims to ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all. Themes: - Food systems transformation with aquatic foods - Access to sustainable, safe and nutritious aquatic foods for all - Connecting research, policy and action to achieve food system goals235238243244246248249251Aquatic foods offer game-changing solutions in line with the UN Food System Summit Action Track 1: Access to sustainable, safe and nutritious food for all. Sustainable production and consumption of aquatic foods are an important key to ending poverty and hunger, and to ensure food security and health for all. We must keep our oceans and waters renewable and clean, ensure a variety of aquatic foods and fully use what we harvest, without loss and waste. To release the potential of aquatic foods, in a sustainable way, we have to work together across borders. The importance of international cooperation also applies to combat fisheries crime and to maintain sustainable management of all marine resources. Aquatic foods are 1 a) a vital source of nutrition, micronutrients vitamins, minerals omega fatty acids - b) they have a lover environmental impacts than many terrestrial food systems, c) they employs many of the worlds most vulnerable and many of them are women. If we get the productions right we get supply of nutritious foods, lower environmental footprints and generate livelihoods for the most vulnerable and support womens income. 2) We can increase the production of aquatic foods within the planetary boundaries, 3) How can we increase the consumption? Many factors: peoples income is to low to afford it, prices to high, need to work on that from the production side to the retail side, low demand might be due to worries about many issues such as safety, taste etc. There are worries about sustainability. • Panelists highlighted how the vast array of aquatic food systems, from ocean to inland water bodies, can produce diverse aquatic food species critical to the food and nutrition security of communities in low- and middle-income countries. • Holistic knowledge and food system approaches are needed to ensure access to sufficient amounts of aquatic foods that is sustainably produced, nutritious and safe to eat and consumed as part of healthy diets for generations to come. • The benefits derived from giving aquatic foods greater recognition in the food systems agenda can contribute to building the sustainability, resilience and inclusivity of aquatic food systems and related value chains. Innovative and holistic approaches to aquatic food systems hold significant opportunities for boosting health, livelihoods and wellbeing, especially of the poor and vulnerable. · Aquatic foods provide essential micronutrients to the diet of millions of people, therefore reducing the risk of micronutrient deficiencies and non-communicable diseases. · Panelists pointed to the importance of accurate information on the nutrient-content of locally available aquatic foods for consumers to understand their impacts on food and nutrition security. · By combining sustainable intensification of aquaculture, improved management of capture fisheries while increasing the development of fish value chains and reducing significant fish loss and waste, improvements can be made to the provision of food and to nutrition while keeping within planetary boundaries. · Innovative solutions, such as knowledge tools and mobile applications that are efficient, cost-effective and accessible, are critical to bridge technical gaps and develop consumer knowledge and understanding of diverse aquatic foods and their benefits. · Mobilizing government interests towards developing meaningful dietary guidelines, such as school-feeding programs, is key to boosting local consumption of healthy and nutritious aquatic foods, especially among the poor and vulnerable. Creating an enabling environment for research to connect with policy to ensure sustainable production and consumption of safe and nutritious aquatic foods. • Panelists explained that sustainable resource management of aquatic food systems, from production all the way to consumption, is key to environmental sustainability and food systems resilience. • For instance, making full use of low-trophic aquatic foods that have low-environmental impact but contain high nutritional value, such as jellyfish and mussels, must be recognized in upcoming national food-based dietary guidelines. • Fisheries and aquaculture also support the livelihoods of around 820 million people around the world, 90% of whom work in the small-scale sector and half of which are women. • Women-centric policies are thus critical in aquatic food systems to create employment opportunities that are equitable, inclusive and can contribute to the growth in household income. • This can best be achieved through a close collaboration between the Food Systems Summit, industry, research and policy to ensure aquatic foods play a central part in sustainable food systems transformation for ‘healthy ocean and healthy people.’236238243244246248249251• The vast array of aquatic food systems, from ocean to inland water bodies, can produce diverse aquatic food which is critical to food and nutrition security and which can contribute to combat the triple burden of malnutrition (SDG 2 and SDG3). • Aquatic foods are a biodiverse food group, provide essential nutrients such as protein, omega 3 and 6 fatty acids, vitamins and minerals to the diet of millions of people, therefore reducing the risk of micronutrient deficiencies and non-communicable diseases. • There is a lack of open access analytical data on nutrients and contaminants in aquatic foods following the value chain. The importance of accurate information on the nutrient-content of locally available aquatic foods is a prerequisite for consumers to understand their impacts on food and nutrition security. • Holistic knowledge on food system approaches is needed to ensure access to aquatic foods that is sustainably produced, nutritious and safe to eat and consumed as part of healthy diets for generations to come. • Discussions are commonly dominated by agriculture. There is an urgent need for the recognition of aquatic foods as a game-changing solution in the food systems agenda. • Innovative solutions, such as knowledge tools and mobile applications that are efficient, cost-effective and accessible, are critical to bridge technical gaps and develop consumer knowledge and understanding of diverse aquatic foods and their nutritional benefits. • Food Composition Data forms the basis of many programs and policies, making it more nutrition-sensitive and cost-effective, and enable the development of meaningful guidelines for improving dietary adequacy. Mobilizing government interests towards developing meaningful dietary guidelines, such as school-feeding programs, is key to boosting local consumption of healthy and nutritious aquatic foods, especially among the poor and vulnerable. • There has been limited attention to the use of highly nutritious, low-trophic aquatic foods for human consumption. It is part of UN Nutrition’s mission to encourage policy frameworks to leverage aquatic foods for their untapped potential in national food-based dietary guidelines.237238243244246248249251There were no strong divergence among the participants. This is a summary of open ended questions answered after the webinar. Q1: What are the key actions to be done for aquatic foods to be a part of the solution for a sustainable food system? There are 5 main themes suggested by the participants that can be a part of the solution for a sustainable food system, including: science & technology, sustainable practices, supply chain, awareness and overall governance. In the theme of science & technology, participants called for publication of scientific data, with particular emphasis on its availability, transparency and readability. These further encourage the data to be acquired and understood cross-sectionally, cross-regionally and internationally. There are several specific areas which require advancement: understanding in productivity, accessibility, safety, traceability, accountability and transparency of aquatic food at regional and global scales, technologies to increase productivity and farmer-friendly technologies. For aquaculture specifically, AMR, seed development and quality feed are essential and all required attention. Lastly, a special focus on the waste and loss of product is needed including food process and storage. Improving sustainable aquatic food production is crucial, in particular, diversifying target species (e.g. non-traditional species, seaweed and low trophic position species), promoting native species and avoiding the introduction of invasive species, reducing environmental impacts, and establishing and managing MPAs and sustainable fisheries. The majority of the participants agree that the awareness of aquatic food should be raised to increase consumption and provide job opportunity. The scientific knowledge about aquatic food should be communicated to the general public such as the health benefit and combating global food insecurity. This can be done through public figures and social media influencers. Such information should also be made aware cross-sectionally. These together will enhance the reliability and accountability of aquatic food and thus its value chain at both regional and global scales, thus, leading to encountering ongoing biased opinion against aquatic food. In terms of governance, the participants indicated the important role of governments in market management, pricing vs affordability management, implementing quality standards, advertising aquatic food (e.g. health and economic benefits), integrating aquatic food into the current food and nutrient policies, especially in the global food system dialogue, providing support (e.g. investment and other public resources) and equal opportunity for fishermen, particularly those in the small-scale fisheries, improving the rights of fishermen, including younger generations in relevant dialogues and practices. Q2: How are aquatic foods included and weighted in the ongoing general debate and policies on food security, sustainable healthy diets and sustainable food systems? There is only one participant who thinks that aquatic food receives high priority while the rest believe that it is either inadequate, increasing, or varying. The participants who chose ‘inadequate’ suggested a few reasons including; aquatic food was not sufficiently accredited; lack of data, particularly for small-scale fisheries; insufficient technological advances; insufficient discussions, food strategies or measures to incorporate fishery organisations into UNFSS, for example, in the recent UNFSS, the discussion of terrestrial agriculture dominated; lack of funding; lack of sustainable development strategies, especially for the wild catch; lack of actions; issue with GMOs; and misleading information. Q3: How do we scale up the good solutions? There are 5 main themes suggested by the participants including: advancing science & technology;, policy making and reinforcement;, improving awareness and education; enhancing collaborations and business development. Improving the science and technology including research on nutrient benefits, environmental impacts, data transparency and sharing, policy making, diversifying marine resources (e.g. seaweed), technologies of food processing and knowledge transfer. Policy making, which includes developing incentives, financing relevant industries, strategies for different time and spatial scales, equal opportunity for small scale fisheries, following the 3 pillars of FAO, and incorporating aquatic food into policies.

2021-05-20 14:51:18204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/1226/203

2720609182727

The Principles were included in course materials relating to this Dialogue and made a part of all discussions incorporated into the Dialogue's execution.Each of the Principles was made part of the Dialogue's execution as described above.

Yes

234238239240241242The Dialogue convened at the University of Virginia was an interdisciplinary examination of food systems involving several schools and departments from across the university having special relevance to this subject. This approach was to bring diverse perspectives to the “decision” table and to avoid problems of multiple policy and programmatic silos. This Dialogue accepts that there is value to all people having access to a sustainable, healthy, and sufficient diet, including individuals directly engaged in the food value chain at all levels. While this Dialogue includes a determined domestic focus, it is intended that U.S. policies should contribute to international stability food security and the goals described above. The design of this Dialogue was the work product of students at the Frank Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy. The Dialogue’s discussion on the topic of sustainable consumption was framed around three workstreams of food environments, food demand, and food waste. The discussion was based on topics of food availability, accessibility, and inequity; food affordability and insecurity; and the consumption and production of unhealthy food and its effects on public health and the environment. The first major theme that emerged from the discussion was the socioeconomic and geographic inequities that exacerbate barriers to healthy food consumption and sustainability. The second major theme was the multidisciplinary scope of the problem, where food consumption policies must be addressed from the lens of public health, urban planning, and social welfare. Finally, bottom-up, community-led approaches in food consumption program implementation will be crucial to increase food security, affordability, and food autonomy in the long run. The discussion surrounding nature positive production focused on practices that promote reduced impact of agriculture on the environment while ensuring sufficient food production. While more research is needed, our preliminary discussion found a need to provide farmers with financial incentives (such as tax breaks or payment for ecosystem services) to change their unsustainable monoculture agriculture practices. A move towards more nature positive production will involve multiple objectives. To promote equitable livelihoods, it was necessary to explore communities’ ability to create local access to a varied diet. It was recognized there are many complex and intersecting challenges to advance equitable livelihoods. However, the Dialogue chose to focus on domestic issues, particularly the living wage and low access to fresh fruits and vegetables. Ensuring healthy and nutritious food is available to all in times of crisis requires preemptively building resilience and efficiently responding to shocks when they occur. Enhanced resilience requires advancement in consumption, production, and livelihoods. This requires a focus on environmental, economic, health, and equity to build food system resiliency against shocks. The discussion included how methods used to improve resilience can be transferred to other countries and how U.S. foreign policy can improve international food stability. Though focused domestically, the findings and actions presented below will contribute to international stability and food security by representing key root causes of global food instability. By focusing on economic factors through the living wage and cultural factors through community engaged gardens, we home in on intervening at critical points that impact the multiple parts of the food system.235238239240241242The forces that shape food systems are interconnected. Sustainable consumption is complicated by wealth inequities and healthier options vary along socioeconomic lines. Similarly, food deserts (an issue of distance, access, and affordability) contribute to rampant American malnutrition and obesity, and are most often found in areas serving minority, low-income, and rural households. Healthy food is underproduced and is not cost-effective in the short term as compared to unhealthy options. The affordability disparity is highlighted by highly processed food diets versus those with more fruits, vegetables, and healthier proteins. The Dialogue highlighted the need for bottom-up approaches and by affording those affected a say in necessary changes. This includes discussing how food should be incorporated in urban planning, such as considering the primary modes of transportation a locality uses, geographic barriers, and zoning plans. Improved quality in food pantries and incentives for cheaper pricing and wider selection of healthy options in grocery stores (and improved profitability) can improve consumption patterns in America. Finally, food justice should be deliberately incorporated into sustainable consumption and urban planning as it relates to food policy. The Lancet Commission's six planetary boundaries best describe nature-positive production. The boundaries are climate change, biodiversity loss, land system change, freshwater use, and nitrogen and phosphorus flows. It is significantly difficult to consider these boundaries separately, as they often affect or are dependent on one another. Promoting soil health and carbons sequestration through regenerative practices can address these boundaries. Unfortunately, economic, and political lock-ins incentivize chemical-dependent, high-yield, monoculture agricultural practices, further complicate these issues. Therefore, major reform must include additional research on agricultural methods that balance both the financial and environmental goals of farmers and a general deconstruction of the economic and political lock-ins that continue to promote current American agricultural. Factors to consider include: • Planetary boundaries as interconnected elements. • Promotion of soil health and stability through regenerative practices. • Intensive rather than extensive agricultural growth. • Incorporation of indigenous knowledge in farm policy. • Inclusive policymaking. • Incentives for farmer investment in nature-positive methods through tax credits and payment for ecosystem services. • Concentration within agricultural and small farm operations access to finance. • Public buy-in and involvement of multiple stakeholders. • Data collection and education. • Reduced food waste and loss at all levels of the food supply chain. • Regional and local initiatives as incubators for national-level change. Equitable livelihoods require a broad systemic change to increase food access to all individuals. This change will take time and immediate ameliorating action is needed. A raised minimum wage will combat food insecurity among low-income individuals and families and recognize the value of workers within our food system. Empowering local creativity through community gardens will reduce food inequities. Communities that take ownership of their access to fresh fruits and vegetables will provide those with low access to nutritious food the agency to produce their own food and meet their needs. Sharing ideas for interventions in equitable food access and reduce challenges to innovation and creativity posed by siloization. Climate change, environmental, conflict, and economic shocks threaten to disrupt the food system resulting in a lack of affordable, nutritious food which is exacerbated by racial and socioeconomic inequality. The lack of healthy food impacts community resilience to shocks, such as pandemics, through nutrition-related non-communicable diseases, such as obesity, heart disease, and diabetes, for which Americans of color are impacted at disproportionate rates. Poor health harms resilience to face future shocks, as does climate change through rising global temperature and environmental shocks which disrupt the food system. There is a lack of preventative systems of early warning to environmental shocks or sufficient planning and prudent response when they occur. Gaps also exist in responding to shocks due to breakdowns in social networks, as illustrated by school closures due to COVID-19 and the aftermath of major hurricanes, such as Katrina. Furthermore, the current lack of racial and ethnic diversity within the agricultural system translates to a lack of new ideas, perspectives, and experiences, which holds back progress and innovation in resilience building.236238239240242Food social safety nets should aim to address persistent inequities in food access for low-income, minority, and rural households, as well as improve consumption patterns. Programs should serve people living in food deserts and other nutrition-deficit localities. Two improvements include providing food with a higher nutritional value in food pantries and lowering the qualification threshold to food pantries to improve access. Means-tested food programs such as SNAP and WIC do not provide sufficient money for people to consume a healthy, adequate diet. SNAP and WIC need increased federal funding. Additionally, these two programs should increase participant benefits to match the costs of a healthy, adequate diet and can incentivize participants to spend their money on healthier food. This would help households eat in a healthier, more sustainable manner. For instance, providing people with an extra thirty cents on every dollar that they spend on specifically designated healthier food items has been shown to improve healthy consumption patterns. Other program improvements could include lowering the barriers to access the program itself, such as decreasing the volume of application paperwork, simplifying the language used on the application, and conducting widespread program outreach to help enroll eligible households. We suggest that, in addition to improving existing programs, new non-means-tested nutrition programs be created to address the access gap for healthy food. Regardless of income level, most Americans are malnourished. An example of such a program is a food bank (with healthy food) in schools. This food bank would not be means-tested, which would help reduce malnutrition among students of various socioeconomic backgrounds. States should also increase the budget for school lunch and breakfast programs. These should be offered and accessible even when school is not in-session, such as over summer and winter breaks, and students should be allowed to take food away from the programs to be consumed (at home or at school or to share with their family members). Finally, school food programs can be more effective in their implementation by engaging in a bottom-up approach, such as by including students and parents in the food selection process, bringing students to farms, allowing students to “try out” various new food, and generally making the nutritional standards more appetizing and appealing to children. One element of building resilience to shocks would include a legislative response, namely merging the SNAP and WIC programs in the United States to improve nutrition and health. A concerted focus on nutrition outcomes will help build resilience to future shocks through improved health. Congress would need to enact this legislative change. Policymakers would measure progress by tracking rates of food insecurity and childhood obesity, and other nutrition-related health outcomes. Potential challenges to this outcome include political buy-in and funding constraints. It should be noted that food-related social safety nets also apply to the production of food, as have been a central theme in U.S. farm legislation for nearly a century. But consistent with the objective of this recommendation, modifications should include: • Incentives that encourage farmers to produce food with nature positive methods to help reduce the cost of these changing practices on the consumer. • Farmers markets participation (especially for small-scale farmers) incentives to improve access to nutritious food for all consumers.236238239241This issue approaches healthy consumption from an equity lens, highlighting social determinants across socioeconomic lines. Establishing a living wage and increasing worker dignity can increase food affordability and autonomy of workers. Local governments should ensure that individuals who work in community gardens/other agricultural spaces that produce fruits and vegetables are compensated through a higher, living minimum wage and allow them to purchase the food they help to produce at a highly subsidized rate. Because these individuals are often low-income, this can help increase the affordability of healthier food across socioeconomic lines. In a market-based economy, insufficient income will reduce consumption. When it comes to food, that can lead to food insecurity and/or malnutrition. To reduce food insecurity due to affordability barriers, we recommend increasing the minimum wage to a living wage rate. Increased income will improve food access by bringing the minimum standard of living to a sustainable level. This will help all low-income, food insecure individuals and families obtain sufficient, healthy nutrition and demonstrate that we value the food systems employees. There are many paths to securing a living wage for low-income Americans and workers along the food value chain. In the ideal case, this would be implemented through a federal legislative mandate to raise the national minimum wage to at least $15 an hour. The key stakeholders here are clearly the members of Congress, the President, and the political actors likely to want to influence the congressional debate, including constituents and the business lobbies. However, given the current political landscape, efforts should also be made to promote state and local minimum wage mandates, which would require input from the corresponding governmental stakeholders. Government at all levels could provide incentives (especially those involved in the food system) to increase their minimum wages through tax breaks, subsidies, and other programs. These efforts could be supported by public campaigns (including local community organizers) and unionization efforts. Our Dialogue found that implementing a living wage should be just one part in overall efforts to increase food worker dignity. Others include updating worker safety regulations, increasing enforcement, and public campaigns that acknowledge the value and importance of this work. A living wage’s impact could be evaluated by wage rates and employment of the bottom of the income distribution, and particularly for those who work in the food value chain. Demand for benefits like SNAP and WIC would assess how food insecurity has changed as a result. We recognize the significant implementation challenges. Definition of a living wage is perhaps the most fundamental of these challenges. Others include how to address regional differences in the cost of living and impacts of inflation. Efforts to increase the minimum wage through legislation will face strong political resistance due to claims of harm to businesses and increased unemployment. However, the work of addressing these concerns has already occurred in many localities and the lessons learned in these contexts should inform future action and advocacy. A living wage will break down economic barriers to food insecurity. It is important to enact more targeted changes in the food system, however, this is a starting point to ensure that low-income households are not food insecure simply because they do not have the money to purchase nutritious food.236239240Shifting to healthy consumption patterns has vast environmental benefits. Flexitarian and vegetarian diets reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and the environmental footprint of food is heavily dependent on how the food is produced. Using increased agricultural land toward fruits and vegetables rather than commodity crops would help the environment and improve agricultural sustainability. This recommendation is divided into three significant parts: short-term goals, long-term goals, and the importance of inclusive policymaking. The first short-term goal is increased research on nature-positive methods of agricultural production. Data collection among farmers (perhaps through federal policies) including information on soil health, carbon, and pesticide levels should be expanded. Data on measures of farmland health is crucial in crafting federal policies to aid farmer transition to nature positive production. Another short-term goal is creation of economic incentives for farmers transition to nature-positive practices. These could include carbon sequestration tax credits or other financial incentives. Restrictive tax policy or mandates may only further impair low-income farmers’ abilities. Additional research on financially feasible sustainable agricultural practices is needed. A long-term goal is to dismantle current economic lock-ins for American agriculture practices. One method involves restructuring farm subsidy policies, specifically crop insurance, to be more environmentally friendly and could involve insurance that is not crop-specific but applies to all crops. Another policy approach involves reforming antitrust policies for the nation's largest industrial farms. Thirdly, a more inclusive process for policies to enhance sustainable and nature-positive food production is needed. All stakeholders, including small farmers, citizens, businesses, scientists, and legislators, must be included to ensure positive and equitable outcomes. In addition, consideration must be given to indigenous practices. Similarly, Congress should improve finance opportunities and risk management, especially for farmers of color. This could include debt relief, grants, training, education, and other forms of assistance to secure land tenure. This could build resilience through education and training to support farm stability and diversification of food production and consumption through sustainably healthy diets. Improved minority access to credit could be measured by a quantifiable increase in the number of farmers of color in the U.S. These actions need to recognize budgetary challenges. Additional nature positive specific measures include: • Increased funding to agricultural extensions and research programs. o Increased research on soil health o More research on ability farmland to sequester carbon, carbon sequestration tax credits, and their applicability to farming systems o “Farming of carbon capture” • Economic incentives for ecosystem services, to promote nature-positive methods of farming that produce co-benefits of food production, soil regeneration, carbon storage, and biodiversity. o Cost share programs for investments in new practices o Payment for ecosystem services through tax credits o Restructure crop insurance program practices o Competitive prices for farmers; make the profit from taking land out of production higher than what would have been produced with poor practices o Antitrust approaches236238239240241242Food is at the source of human life. While it sustains us and connects us, our food systems are severely distant resulting in a disconnect and reduction in the value we place on food within our value-chain. In the US, people do not engage in food production and preparation as in countries with lower rates of obesity and diabetes. As in those other countries, Americans should be more involved with food production through community gardens to reduce distance from production to consumption. This includes participation by schools and universities to engage students, since significant lifetime consequences of poor nutrition emerge at a young age, and local governments/organizations should find ways to compensate individuals for working in these gardens. Involving schools and afterschool programs would have the added benefit of teaching children about nutrition. Community gardens place food agency for improved nutrition in the hands of those who are food insecure or cannot access preferred foods like fresh fruits and vegetables. These efforts draw on existing community and nonprofit institutions and promote ownership and pride in work through cultivation. Funding sources may be local and state government and it is important to emphasize the need to adequately compensate community members for their efforts and labor in the community garden. At the local level, each community garden can be tailored to the local community in terms of food types, type of engagement, funding mechanisms and access. The community garden will be completely run by community members themselves. An example of success is Cultivate Charlottesville, a local food justice organization in Virginia working towards food equity through community-engaged gardens. Implementing this approach at a large-scale will take time and a benchmark of quality common to all is needed to ensure gardens meet community needs. A mechanism (such as an annual assessment needed for funding) would ensure that each community garden is performing to a set standard. This intervention may employ metrics quantifying both food available locally to community members from these community gardens as well as the level of engagement community members exhibit towards those places. The latter will be more challenging to measure but qualitative case studies and focus groups can illuminate any cultural shift that may occur because of the community gardens. Building up relationships between food system stakeholders is essential in building resilience and inspiring coordinated action to shocks. Community-based programs including community gardens improve access to affordable nutritious food. Organizations and community leaders should cooperate to put gardens in locations that target those most in need of fresh fruits and vegetables. There are also opportunities for nonprofits to partner with local schools to create community gardens. Response networks that supply and transport available food in times of crisis would also help strengthen resilience. These outcomes could be measured by Resilience indicators, such as Baseline Resilience Indicators for Communities index (BRIC). Challenges associated with executing this outcome includes potential logistical and coordination difficulties. Monocultures are more profitable and easier to scale than producing a diverse array of food. Government subsidy or tax incentives for community garden/local grocery stores in food deserts that promote more nutritious vegetables/fruits would decrease our reliance on monocultures and help reduce micronutrient deficiencies.236238239242Building resilience and responding to shocks will require local, state, and federal governments to work with businesses to successfully continue providing nutritious food to those in need during shocks. One way that governments can care for vulnerable populations during a shock is through establishing early warning systems in cooperation with businesses to know in what regions shocks are most likely to occur based on history. Governments can provide incentives to businesses (such as tax incentives and subsidies) to increase food supply and decrease food costs in certain regions at certain times of the year to create an ease of access equitably. Additionally, if supply starts to quickly fall during a shock, both government and business can coordinate to rapidly increase supply to that region so that shortages are prevented. There are several challenges that can be associated with cooperation, though. First, businesses are not required to uphold certain measures that they may claim to support in cooperation with governments. Businesses can choose to backout at any time unless they are held accountable for their actions in some sort of manner. Early warning systems may also not be adequately prepared, depending on the severity of the shock. Success can be measured using Resilience indicators, such as the BRIC index. Success can also be viewed by observing the impact of how much food was distributed that may not have been otherwise distributed via the partnership. While this issue is largely focused on the resilience of a food system, consumption of affordable and nutritious food is heavily influenced by food supply chains. The ability to purchase healthy food options is fragmented across socioeconomic lines, but misaligned incentives within the market structure of food suppliers render healthy consumption a difficult problem to solve without public/private cooperation. Given the overreliance on a lack of diversity in the food supply market and the culture of fast-food dominance in the US food system, public/private partnerships to shift incentives will be a focal point of increasing healthy consumption in the US. Government interventions such as sugar taxes or subsidizing healthy produce could potentially improve incentives to purchase and consume healthy foods but do not address the larger barriers to nutritious consumption.

2021-05-20 15:29:20204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/7349/46198

672531112641515443912636513516

In partnership with Griffith Foods, we launched a Food Systems Dialogue series to inform the United Nations Summit which will take place in New York City in September 2021. This 1st dialogue is aligned with the United Nations Action Track 1: Ensure access to healthy and nutritious food for all. The Dialogue included a diversity of perspectives, from the World Food Program to migrants, chefs, community leaders, youth, and representatives of local organizations Alimenta la Solidaridad, ABACO, Griffith Foods, and Comparte Por Una Vida Colombia (CPUV). The challenges we worked on were defined in the group to make sure we would be addressing the most pressing aspects of the Migration and nutrition problem in Colombia and Venezuela.The dialogue was hosted in Spanish to make sure we would involve the most affected in the conversation to generate actions by being evidence-based, transparent, and accessible. We invited our members to be sure we already had the perfect space to co-create solutions and those members invited their trusted network, so every participant was carefully selected. As mentioned before since day 1 our focus was to have multisectoral approaches so the participation of Social Gastronomy organizations, food banks, corporations, and academics to complement the work of each other and have the necessary tools to act with urgency.They are all a recipe for a successful dialogue so think about each one of those as ingredients, you'll know what to use depending on your taste but you have a recipe to guide you. The Social Gastronomy Movement leads a network of over 150 social gastronomy organizations and we’re always striving to make sure we have the necessary space for diverse and inclusive conversations in all of our actions so it was brilliant to see how aligned we are with the methodology.

Yes

234238243247248251Based on Action Track 1 - Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all the theme for the first dialogue of our series was 'Migration and Nutrition - Female leadership for innovation in nutritional food security: Colombia and Venezuela'. It addressed the reality and complexity of Migration on the Colombian-Venezuelan border. In this dialogue, we learned about the work of two members of the Social Gastronomy Movement Comparte Por Una Vida Colombia and Alimenta la Solidaridad, the multisectoral approach of the World Food Program, and we listened to the voices of migrant mothers, heads of households, and community leaders. Venezuelan civil society, for approximately 6 years, has been articulating in favor of those most affected by the Complex Humanitarian Crisis, together we could understand the situation, and propose solutions to malnutrition and uninformed migration. The main points of discussion were: 1. Unexpected challenges, realities, and testimonies of irregular migration experienced by more than 1.7 million Venezuelans in Colombia. 2. The pilot project to support migrant enterprises by the World Food Program, expanding the action of food systems to accelerate integration socioeconomic status of Venezuelans in the city of Barranquilla, Colombia. 3. Prevention programs implemented by Alimenta la Solidaridad serve more than 14,000 meals in 15 states and 239 communities a day in Venezuela. 4. CPUV has performed around 53,518 nutritional treatments and delivered more than 42,000 school snacks in Colombia.235238242243247249251Participants agreed on several solutions to mitigate this regional challenge, including the following: 1. Educational programs that demystify migration, spreading the information of the reality of those who migrate in search of food. 2. Implementation of co-responsibility models that offer worthy opportunities, eg. The new Colombian policies for the regularization of Venezuelan migrants. 3. Comprehensive analysis of food systems in Venezuela within the current context of the country. 4. Strengthening logistics to prevent food waste. 5. Creation of donation networks, necessary for the implementation of food banks.236How are programs in Venezuela strengthened to prevent and regulate unsystematic migration? The lack of information about organizations such as Alimenta la Solidaridad for some Venezuelans is a reality. If not the most pressing, food security is one reason people decide to leave their country, and yet, they are unaware of the solutions they can find if they decide to stay. Despite technological challenges in the country, it is important to find ways to strengthen communications between organizations, vulnerable communities, and potential allies. If different organizations joined forces, they would create a ripple effect that reaches most of the population. These alliances and partnerships could determine the success of eventual food banks in Venezuelan territory and even food sovereignty, with the creation of seed networks that could potentially awaken agriculture again in a country where most of its food is imported and sold at terribly high prices. Do you think Venezuela is in condition to set up food banks? What ideas do you have? - Difficult passage from the border, transportation capacity does not currently exist - Combustible crisis - They work with Macro as a distributor, only through orders - Persecution of activists or organizations - Production on the floor, production can be at 30% - Agricultural production - Colombia has ANDI, Venezuela has the Venezuelan Food Chamber: actor key code - Polar Companies - How to do an analysis of food systems today? - How is it currently articulated? - Civil society is not articulated - Opportunities identification Conclusions: - Food banks are born worldwide in order to avoid losses and food waste to contribute to the food and nutrition security of the vulnerable population. - A logistical infrastructure is required for the rescue of food and a network of donors. - Both agricultural production and industry are currently limited - It is important to do an analysis of food systems, with the current context in Venezuela in order to identify opportunities.237One of the outcomes of our dialogue was the need for education of people concerning the reality of migrants, spreading the word of what is the reality of those who already migrated in search of better conditions to live is the best way to guarantee those people are well informed when making that kind of decision. The big problem here is that the ones that need the information are the ones with little to no access to the internet and general communication means, based on CPUV research, 35% of the migrant families in Colombia only have 1 smartphone with internet access when they have it.

2021-05-20 15:51:54204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/9390/203

401010761414673211224521222211121

Los Principios guiaron la forma en la que se encuadró el tema y se propuso el diálogo. El tema del diálogo fue la Agricultura Digital y su aporte a la transformación de los sistemas alimentarios. En el encuadre del tema, se planteó la necesidad y urgencia de transformar los sistemas alimentarios y el aporte que pueden hacer las tecnologías digitales disponibles y venideras. El tema se abordó reconociendo la complejidad de los sistemas alimentarios y proponiendo que la Agricultura digital es necesaria pero no suficiente para la transformación positiva. En el mismo sentido, se propuso que la Agricultura digital puede ofrecer grandes beneficios para alcanzar sistemas más sostenibles, saludables e inclusivos, pero que también supone riesgos que es necesario considerar y minimizar (esto estuvo reflejado en el título del diálogo: "...Cómo maximizar los beneficios y minimizar las amenazas"). Con relación a la forma en la que se organizó el diálogo, la convocatoria al mismo fue pública (difusión por redes sociales), haciendo además llegar invitaciones especiales a diversos actores públicos y privados de diferentes países que se consideró que podían hacer un aporte significativo por su relación con la temática. Las consignas invitaron a reflexionar sobre acciones y colaboración entre distintos actores. La dinámica del diálogo se diseñó de manera tal de asegurar el aporte de todos los asistentes en un marco de respeto y confianza, promovido por los facilitadores. En el trabajo en grupos se dejaron 5 minutos de pensamiento individual y luego el facilitador dio la posibilidad de que cada participante comparta sus pensamientos; el resto del tiempo fue de intercambio abierto, respetando el orden de pedido de palabra y estimulando el aporte de todos los asistentes.Participantes de países, sectores y experiencias diversas. Abordaje integral del tema (agricultura digital en el marco de sistemas alimentarios complejos); Participación activa y sostenida de todos los asistentes; Clima de intercambio respetuoso y organizado; Propuesta de prioridades, acciones y compromisos de distintos actores.

Yes

234238239240241242248249El tema principal del diálogo fue la Agricultura Digital. El diálogo propuso analizar y proponer acciones y colaboraciones que contribuyan a asegurar los aportes que la agricultura digital puede hacer a la transformación de los sistemas agrícolas. El diálogo tuvo una presentación de encuadre en la cual se plantearon los siguientes conceptos: - La digitalización de la agricultura es necesaria (aunque no suficiente) para la transformación de los sistemas alimentarios. La agricultura digital puede contribuir de múltiples maneras a las 5 vías de acción que propone la cumbre, y con ello a cumplir varios Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible. - La digitalización de la agricultura supone múltiples impactos positivos o beneficios, pero también conlleva riesgos de impactos negativos, en especial asociados a la dimensión social (acentuar desigualdades, acelerar exclusión y desplazamiento, generar conflictos). - La digitalización de la agricultura es inevitable, pero aún es incipiente y desigual por la existencia de múltiples barreras y brechas: Infraestructura, Correspondencia entre la oferta tecnológica y las necesidades de agricultores, Acceso a las tecnologías, Capacidades para el uso de las tecnologías, Agendas de promoción y regulación. - La digitalización de la agricultura está en marcha y se acelera (influencia importante de COVID-19): Es urgente concertar agendas público-privadas de impulso a la digitalización de la agricultura, de modo de asegurar que se expresan sus beneficios por sobre sus amenazas. Hacia el final de la presentación se mencionaron acciones sugeridas para agendas de impulso a la digitalización de la agricultura. Las consignas para el diálogo (en grupos y luego intercambio plenario) se plantearon de acuerdo a los conceptos propuestos en la presentación disparadora: - ¿Qué aspectos de la digitalización de la agricultura debieran priorizarse para asegurar su contribución a la transformación positiva de sistemas alimentarios? - ¿Qué acciones concretas podrían realizar distintos actores para un avance dinámico e inclusivo de la digitalización de la agricultura?235238239240241242248249A continuación, se señalan los principales cinco conceptos y recomendaciones emergentes del trabajo en grupos (muchos de ellos mencionados por la mayoría de los grupos; ver detalles abajo): 1) Asegurar el acceso a las tecnologías: Es indispensable asegurar el acceso a las tecnologías y, en especial, conectividad con cobertura amplia y alta calidad para el desarrollo de la agricultura digital. La conectividad constituye un aspecto central de la agricultura digital y se convirtió en un elemento esencial para la vida rural en el marco de la pandemia. 2) Visibilizar las tecnologías: Difundir las soluciones tecnológicas digitales disponibles, dado que muchos agricultores no conocen la oferta existente. Evaluar, documentar y comunicar los impactos y beneficios de las mismas como elemento clave para su incorporación y aprovechamiento. 3) Ajustar las tecnologías para que sean relevantes: Asegurar que las soluciones tecnológicas se enfoquen en las necesidades de los agricultores y se adapten a sus contextos (ej. que aborden problemáticas concretas, que sean simples e intuitivas, que puedan funcionar sin conexión, etc.). Para este fin, es importante el trabajo con los agricultores y las organizaciones en los procesos de desarrollo. 4) Fortalecer la capacitación y acompañamiento técnico: Es indispensable la alfabetización digital para formar las destrezas y capacidades que requiere el uso de las tecnologías digitales. En este contexto es necesario adaptar los servicios de extensión para que puedan encabezar instancias de formación de capacidades y de acompañamiento en procesos de desarrollo e incorporación de las tecnologías. 5) Sensibilizar a los decisores políticos: Instalar los beneficios potenciales de la agricultura digital y la urgencia de trabajar en su impulso en decisores políticos a distintas escalas territoriales. El sector público debe generar las condiciones para que los privados desarrollen y utilicen las tecnologías. Por su parte, el sector público debe simplificar y digitalizar servicios (ej. trámites) como parte del proceso de digitalización y su impulso. De manera transversal a los cinco puntos, se mencionó la necesidad de poner especial énfasis (en el marco del proceso de impulso a la digitalización) en grupos o actores más relegados (ej. comunidades indígenas, jóvenes y mujeres)236238239240241242248249Se detallan a continuación las notas sobre los conceptos y recomendaciones compartidos por cada grupo a través de su vocero, en la sesión plenaria posterior al trabajo en grupos. Todos los grupos trabajaron en la misma consigna (ver arriba): Grupo 1: Acceso a las TICs en cobertura y calidad como básico para desarrollar agricultura digital. Acento en trabajar con agricultores en cooperativas, mejorando sus conocimientos tecnológicos. Conocimiento desarrollado a través de organizaciones. Énfasis en comercio internacional electrónico, venta de desperdicios para transformación. Agricultura digital llevada a familias rurales y a grupos excluidos como comunidades indígenas. Territorios rurales más dinámicos económicamente para poder hacer desarrollo digital. Grupo 2: Gran cantidad de productores no conoce la oferta de soluciones digitales disponibles. Dar a conocer estas soluciones y comenzar a analizar los contextos en los que se aplican las mismas, habiendo tecnologías que se enfocan en contextos específicos que no aplican en otros. Importante evaluar objetivamente y documentar el impacto específico que genera cada una de estas soluciones tecnológicas. Foco en capacitación de usuarios/as de la tecnología, y ver cómo incluir a los jóvenes como protagonistas para conducir estos procesos, así como a las mujeres. Rol de tecnologías digitales para rescatar conocimientos ancestrales que corren riesgo de perderse y cuentan tienen gran valor. Mostrar impactos que generan las tecnologías y difundirlos. Hay que ser inteligentes para montar sistemas de incentivos para la adopción de la tecnología. Grupo 3: Aspectos importantes como tener en cuenta facilidad de uso de la herramienta; que sean intuitivas y puedan usarse con poca capacitación. De todos modos, enseñar el uso e implicancias de las herramientas. Que las herramientas se adapten al agricultor y no al revés. Deben ser adaptadas considerando a quién van dirigidas (jóvenes, mujeres…). Herramientas orientadas a problemas reales y soluciones reales, y ver vinculación entre problemas y soluciones. Es clave la necesidad de que participen diferentes actores en el idear y diseñar las herramientas. Necesidad de herramientas que sean accesibles, que puedan trabajar fuera de línea para su mejor aprovechamiento. Las acciones para impulsar deben ser parte de la política pública, incluyendo la mejora de procesos de tramitación, y que el sector público genere las condiciones para que el privado pueda utilizar las herramientas. Grupo 4: Prioridades: la conectividad, que se convirtió en derecho humano fundamental; la alfabetización para superar las brechas digitales, la digitalización como forma de alfabetización; la extensión agrícola como mecanismo de promoción de la digitalización agrícola; definición de diferentes tipos de aplicaciones tecnológicas en función del contexto y condiciones específicas. Acciones específicas: Fortalecimiento de los sistemas de extensión agrícola, entendiendo que la pandemia ha propiciado una mayor apropiación de las tecnologías; Que los gobiernos entiendan los beneficios de la digitalización; La formación de extensionistas agrícolas digitales, bajo el supuesto de que se requieren destrezas y capacidades especiales para transmitir estos procesos; Definición de medidas macro y micro de las necesidades que se tengan para cada caso y para cada país; Incidir en los gobiernos, en la sociedad, organismos internacionales, sobre los beneficios que la digitalización trae, no solo al sector agropecuario.237238239240241242248249No surgieron ni se detectaron áreas de divergencia. Como se observa arriba, hubo muchas similitudes y complementariedad en los conceptos y recomendaciones elaboradas por los diferentes grupos.

2021-05-20 16:55:10204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/10758/203

3300199581791108319253416012163891002715341020011052174545460938280

Act with Urgency – In our agenda and invitation letter to the dialogue, we incorporated the sense of urgency which is in line with the European Green Deal, the EU Farm to fork Strategy and the UN Food Systems Summit's objective to accelerating the transition to sustainable, healthy and inclusive food systems and achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030. The stakeholder dialogue was designed to both inform and solicit inputs from a wide diversity of actors working across the food system from science policy to production and consumption, at a global level, in particular international organisations, Members States and other policy makers, scientists and research organisations, knowledge providers, the private sector, civil society organisations/NGO and media. The Dialogue empowered stakeholders to participate and reflect on problems and solutions in the preparation of the Food Systems Summit.We recognised that issues related to food systems are complex and must be addressed through several other global governance processes. Science can play a central role in collecting data from stakeholders, identifying challenges, synergies and trade-offs and increase global partnership. In their exchange, the participants were asked to think of Science Policy Interface(s)-related issues that need most urgent attention to support “food systems transition”, and to identify the principles of strengthened or new interface and propose concrete actions, share models, templates or experiences allowing to reach the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) by 2030. The feedback received from the stakeholders showed that we need better evidence to inform action at all scales. In order to meet the needs of diverse stakeholder groups, we need science, but also different kinds of science, evidence and data.It is important to allow ample time for the discussion sessions, experiences and the information sharing. It is good to keep in mind that the list of registered participants reduces as some do not attend. Also, if you plan to use IT tools to solicit questions or receive inputs, consider that not all attendees will use them. Of 330 people who took part in our dialogue, only 202 of these made active use of the IT platform we had made available to answer questionnaires and ask questions. In order to provide the statistics required in the official feedback form, we could only consider the 202 participants who answered the questions in the IT platforms, even though much more people actually joined the event but for which we have no statistics/information.

Yes

234238239240241242243246249The stakeholder dialogue was designed to both inform and solicit inputs from a wide diversity of actors, in particular international organisations, Members States and other policy makers, scientists and research organisations, knowledge providers, the private sector, civil society organisations/NGO and media.235238239240241242243246249In Science Policy Interface(s) (SPIs), it is essential to consider different sources of knowledge. Knowledge should not be seen only as scientific publications, but also other sources of knowledge (grey literature, local knowledge, etc.) should be considered. Food should not be seen only as nutrition and energy; the cultural aspects of food also need to be considered in the future SPIs. Importance of transparency and inclusion in relation to SPIs, need to avoid polarisation of debate around technology (by taking into account also the role of social innovation), importance of two- way communication and citizen participation (as evidenced by the audience’s interest in Living Labs and Food Policy Councils emerged during the Slido exercise). Legitimacy and mandate are precursors to impact. Legitimacy can come through different ways, like: independent science, the UN as a structure, or through representation and participation. Though should we want a mandate to act in food systems, then it must extend beyond nation states.236238239240241242243246249Importance of synthesising different positions (maintaining the evidence-based approach), the need to reflect on the difference between multi-stakeholderism vs. multilateralism (and how to organise the dialogue with civil society), the importance of learning from more localised experiences (where participation seems to be more effective and it is often easier to connect food system actors). Looking forward and stressing the need to improve (not replace) existing structures is a priority. UN Food Systems Summit is a great tool for having a more structured dialogue and ask for specific engagement with different stakeholder (e.g., private sector guiding group and leadership teams of each of the action tracks). Considering the role of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that offers some key guidelines in that it has similarities to the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE) but different way of operating. In particular, the IPCC has done a lot of work on assessing quality of evidence and confidence of quality of evidence.237238239240241242243246249Four areas of divergence: 1) Role of High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE) (many important learnings, strengths and weaknesses). Also: need to distinguish between HLPE/ UN Committee on World Food Security (CFS, which is a political body, while HLPE is a small scientific panel). Importantly, HLPE has a 15-person steering committee and also has a mandate to explore disagreements. Cons of CFS/HLPE: Small high-level group is fine but cannot have the level of representation needed; silos between HLPE, civil society, private sector. Pros of CFS/HLPE: It is the only legitimate-UN embedded body. However, there are different interpretations of “legitimacy” as some argue that this comes through local participation. 2) Nature of evidence and role of science (Values versus evidence). One camp suggests that food is different from country to country as there are many more cultural/value–based elements in food systems so roll of a Science Policy Interface(s) for food systems must balance the need to create a space for debate and make clear recommendations. One camp suggests science needs to be “objective” and value-free. Relevance of science is the scientific evidence used to drive/inform change? If not, then it’s likely not fit for purpose. 3) Scale. Need for local Science Policy Interface(s) (SPIs) and not just global ones. 4) Existing vs. new SPIs: some argue the use of existing entities, others argue the need for something new.

2021-05-20 18:20:02204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/8433/194

1078731154175535110451734612451422121466141144

This Food Systems Summit Dialogue – “Advancing food systems transformation to nourish the health of future generations and enable a sustainable planet” – explored how society can better nourish future generations in more sustainable ways. Conducted virtually via Zoom, the Dialogue included keynote speakers and interactive, breakout discussions with diverse participants from various sectors across the food system. Prior to the Dialogue, the convenors distributed the link to the "Dialogue Principles of Engagement” to ensure all participants would have the opportunity to read and embrace the Principles throughout the conversation. The Dialogue Curator also opened the meeting with a reading of the Principles and reminded all participants that following these principles is core to the discussion. This Dialogue benefitted from robust discussion across nine different breakout groups for small group discussions around three topics (3 groups/topic): • Topic 1: Dairy's role in child health, school nutrition and food security • Topic 2: Responsible production • Topic 3: Farm stewardship and animal care. Each small group discussion was structured in a similar way and guided by a trained facilitator. Participants started broad by reflecting on a vision statement related to their discussion topic and food systems transformation. Then, they worked to identify stakeholders to involve, opportunities and barriers to address, and specific actions they’d recommend taking to make that vision statement a reality. Throughout all nine discussions, the Principles were applied.The Dialogue followed the “Principles of Engagement,” with a significant focus on embracing multi-stakeholder inclusivity. The four convenors – The Global Child Nutrition Foundation (GCNF), National Dairy Council (NDC), The Nature Conservancy (TNC), and the U.S. Dairy Export Council (USDEC) – worked to ensure the event included stakeholders from various sectors across the food system. This included experts and advocates for child nutrition, students, researchers, representatives from governmental, non-governmental and private sector organizations, farmers, academics, economists, supply chain and packaging experts, and more. Particular attention was paid toward the inclusion of youth leaders and farmers. While young people are the future of agriculture, many have never been on a farm and don’t know the story behind their food. The convenors also recognized that conversations about agriculture policies and practices among decision-makers often exclude those most directly impacted by decisions (e.g., farmers and youth). Therefore, the convenors ensured that each breakout group included at least one farmer and youth representative, as well as people with high levels of subject matter expertise and lived experience to enable a rich discussion. Additionally, the convenors abided by the Chatham House Rule to further ensure participants would feel comfortable sharing their open and honest opinions.No. The convenors felt that the guidance provided in the Food Systems Summit Dialogues Reference Manual was informative, thorough, and helpful throughout Dialogue planning and implementation. This conversation made clear that willingness to deliver on food systems transformation is abundant. This Dialogue forum empowered farmers, youth, scientists, civil servants, nutrition educators, medical professionals and more to share their lived experiences and hopes for the future, and collectively work to make those visions a reality.

Yes

234238239240241242244248249251Convened by organizations united in their commitment to advancing sustainable food systems and improving the health and wellbeing of children, the major focus of this Dialogue was to explore how society can better nourish future generations in more sustainable ways. This Dialogue provided an opportunity for participants from various sectors across the food system to brainstorm opportunities, find common ground, identify solutions, and work through complexities and challenges to achieve food systems transformation. The conversation focused on the following topics and the links between them: • Better ensuring food security and nutrition for children through sustainable school meal programs • Identifying ways to advance environmentally responsible food production, including efforts that can achieve carbon neutrality, enhance farm and water stewardship and more • Exploring U.S. dairy’s role in advancing sustainable food systems through commitments to environmental stewardship and carbon neutrality, child nutrition and social/community impact Participants heard from keynote speakers who highlighted their organization’s respective efforts to help achieve food systems transformation for future generations. • Ron Kleinman, MD (GCNF) emphasized the importance of school meal programs and the roles schools can play in delivering nutritious, safe, sustainable and affordable meals. He also noted that a recent GCNF report, School Meal Programs Around the World, demonstrated that when country governments prioritize nutritious, healthy foods, the market follows. School feeding programs create demand for diverse, nutritious, locally sourced food while promoting local agricultural development and government ownership. He emphasized that by providing a predictable, structured market for these healthy school foods, farmers, producers, distributors - actors all along the value chain - are benefiting from a reliable income source, allowing for increased production and quality year after year. • Lynn Scarlett (TNC) shared ongoing initiatives from the Food and Agriculture Climate Alliance around advancing recommendations to help guide U.S. climate policy. She also underscored the critical need to scale up integrative regenerative practices that restore habitat and protect biodiversity while reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). • Greg Miller, PhD (NDC) highlighted the importance of working holistically across the four domains of sustainability – nutrition, environment, economic and social. He shared the U.S. dairy industry’s commitment to achieve “carbon neutral or better” status for GHG, optimize water use and improve water quality by 2050, and also highlighted the FARM Program -- an effort that drives the dairy community to reach the highest environmental and animal care standards, while supporting safe and stable livelihoods. • Janya Green, Action Track #1 vice chair, spoke to the importance of Dialogues for identifying game-changing and systemic solutions and spoke to her own anti-hunger work in her community. Participants were divided into nine breakout groups; each discussion began with a vision statement based on one of the topics. Participants discussed opportunities and barriers, identified stakeholders to involve and brainstormed actions to take within the next three years to make the vision a reality. While this Dialogue focused on the role of U.S. dairy farmers and dairy products, this sector's experiences can serve as an example for food system actors in general as the world collectively moves towards more sustainable food systems.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Across nine groups, several themes emerged: • Enhance accountability & transparency: This was considered essential in building confidence in food systems. Participants highlighted the importance of metrics that transparently report on progress, reveal priorities, and collect/share environmental and animal care data. • Ensure equity, dignity & inclusion: Participants emphasized these as cross-cutting themes. They shared how to involve stakeholders in food systems solutions, particularly farmers and students, who have historically been omitted from the conversation. Participants urged coherent strategies to eliminate the stigma of receiving free and reduced-price school meals and other forms of food assistance. • Elevate voices of young people: Having youth leaders in each discussion enhanced the Dialogue and underscored the importance of including the next generation in these conversations. Young people should be afforded more opportunities to interact with food systems stakeholders and have their perspectives heard. • Elevate voices of farmers: As many discussions around food systems and agriculture have excluded the very people responsible for food production and resource management, it was imperative that farmers be represented in all group discussions. In some cases, that meant increasing the groups, but this was necessary for adequate farmer representation. • Improve communication & education: Participants saw a role for better communication between farmers and the public, so that the public has a better appreciation for on-farm conditions. They urged more prevalent food/nutrition education to improve public health and combat unreliable information about food production. They also wanted young people to gain better access to and understanding of where food comes from and how it is produced. • Work towards multisector solutions: Participants saw an abundance of willingness from food systems actors to find solutions. They agreed transformation is possible through collective, multidisciplinary action. Dialogues like these are needed to bring stakeholders together who may not otherwise share learnings, opportunities and discuss trade-offs. • Recognize interconnections: Multisector solutions depend on identifying interconnections across the food system. Participants wanted to bolster connections between farmers, schools, food banks and urban communities to build mutual support, understanding and resiliency. Specific to dairy, participants recognized the strong connections between animal welfare, environmental sustainability and social science to enhance consumer trust and support farmers’ livelihoods. • Reimagine existing policies & programs: Participants recognized that the U.S. has many programs to support farmers’ livelihoods, low-income families, nutritious meal programs, etc.; but they saw a need to evolve and improve them to be more inclusive and effective. They highlighted policy opportunities to financially incentivize ecosystem services and support farmers as they seek out and scale sustainable practices. They also recommended updating school food procurement practices to incentivize local food purchases. • Strive for innovations: Research and funding are needed to address environmental challenges — including identifying and measuring the impact of specific innovations. Small farmers in particular need access to this research and funding. Governments can incentivize and invest in researching sustainable and innovative practices. These themes show that responsibility for making food systems sustainable from an environmental, health, social and economic perspective must be shared throughout the supply chain and society: • Farmers acknowledge their role in applying responsible production practices and have made tremendous strides to do so. Continuous improvement requires stronger support from public research and better mechanisms for knowledge-sharing to bolster innovation and make operations more sustainable. • Schools have an important role to play in educating/engaging young people in how foods can nourish people and protect the planet and in serving nutritious, sustainable, affordable and culturally relevant meals to all children. Financial resources, staffing and regulatory hurdles are challenges to overcome. In addition, students must be made aware of the diverse career opportunities in agricultural, whether through school curriculum or expansion of national programs (e.g., 4-H). • The public wants more information about how to eat nutritiously, sustainably and affordably. They would be better served through ongoing education about how/where food is produced, and how a diverse food supply supports food systems sustainability from an environmental, health, social and economic perspective.236238239242244245246247248249251Three groups reflected on this vision: “A future where all children across the U.S. have equitable access to affordable, nutrient-rich, culturally-acceptable, and environmentally-friendly foods.” Participants discussed how schools are trusted food environments that can help drive food system transformation via school meal programs and more education on food/nutrition, farming and agriculture. Overcoming financial challenges through policy changes to provide universal free meals for all students was considered essential. Participants noted that this includes providing adequate funding to the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program, while addressing the fact that some families are food insecure yet have incomes that disqualify them from this assistance. Immigration status can also be a barrier. The U.S. is a multicultural country and school nutrition staff need training to prepare culturally relevant food for diverse student populations. A lack of funding, skilled staff and infrastructure often means these advancements are deprioritized. School meals present an opportunity to identify and prevent food waste along the whole value chain. The burden of preventing food waste sits with all actors, including producers, processors, transporters, and consumers. Schools can also enhance food systems education. Nutrition education is imperative when seeking to improve children’s diets, while life skills and applied science and technology (e.g., STEM) should be incorporated as well. School gardens, farm tours and farmer visits can raise awareness of fresh and local foods among children and families. Participants saw a disconnect between these educational opportunities and current policy. The U.S. does not require nutrition education in schools and school meals are considered separate from the educational portion of the school day. These policy barriers, combined with lacking resource support, pose barriers to overcome. Procurement and distribution flexibility were also seen as opportunities to deliver on this vision. Participants stated that U.S. school food procurement practices must evolve to better support local food purchases. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, participants identified emerging challenges and insights, including food insecurity among children. Many children have been cut off from access to food because of the pandemic. Participants noted how some school districts innovated quickly to distribute school meals to the community; they piloted new meal delivery options like school bus drop-offs, grab-and-go options, and car line pick-ups. The U.S. government also launched the Pandemic Electronic Benefit Transfer option, which afforded families the ability to purchase healthy foods at retail locations during school disruptions. Participants recognized how dairy can support this vision. For example, children consume most of their dairy intake in schools, helping to achieve three daily servings of non-fat or low-fat dairy per day as recommended in the United States Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Participants also observed that children’s diets often include overconsumption of foods that are nutrient poor and supplant nutrient-rich options like dairy foods, fruits and vegetables. Additionally, they observed that bulk milk dispensers in the cafeteria have been proven to help reduce food waste. Lastly, dairy farmers have a long history of hosting farm tours and serving as “farm ambassadors” to generations of school children. They can continue to serve in this capacity to bridge the gap between farm to school.236238239240241242243244245248249250251Three groups discussed how to achieve this vision: “A future where U.S. agricultural production is more resilient and supports clean water, land conservation, climate mitigation and adaptation, and protects biodiversity.” Participants cited significant concern about methane emissions and its impact on global warming, alongside the pressing issue of food loss and waste. Dairy farmers referenced the extensive environmental gains made throughout the dairy supply chain and felt there is a lack of awareness of these efforts among decisionmakers and the public. Educating consumers and other food systems stakeholders around dairy farmer initiatives could help build greater awareness among the public and stronger partnerships between rural and urban communities. They saw an opportunity to elevate understanding around the U.S. dairy sector’s work on ensuring high animal care standards through the implementation of the FARM Program (Farmers Assuring Responsible Management) and establishing ambitious environmental commitments via the U.S. Dairy Environmental Stewardship goals, the industry’s commitment to be “carbon neutral or better,” optimize water use and improve water quality by 2050. Farmers noted that dairy community members pioneered and continue to be receptive to adopting new sustainability technologies and practices, but they must be economically and ecologically feasible. Anerobic digesters are one example of a proven technology that could be scaled. Unfortunately, many innovative practices are cost prohibitive. Public sector investment in research or pre-competitive research were considered key to identify and scale, but that information must be available publicly so that all farmers can benefit. Sharing best practices among farmers globally could be another opportunity to support farms of all sizes, but participants recognized that regional and local differences must be considered. Other recommendations discussed to support farmers in understanding and implementing ecological practices include Ecosystem Services Market and Field to Market. Participants also discussed the need for more engagement with consumers and younger generations, noting their understanding of cow’s milk production and the unique nutrient profile dairy foods provide (compared to non-dairy, plant-based alternatives). Targeted nutrition education efforts, focused on helping consumers understand date labels (e.g., differentiating between “use by” and “best if used by”), were referenced as ways to help reduce food waste. Like the child nutrition-focused groups, these breakout discussions also emphasized the importance of farm tours, including virtual farm tours, to build awareness and appreciation for on-farm practices and connect with young people to give them a voice in the future of sustainable food production. Finally, this group also touched on food production and food insecurity. While millions of people across the United States go hungry each day, there are times when farmers are forced to dispose of surplus food. Participants cited the need for a cohesive system (vs. present ad hoc models) that connects farmers with hunger coalitions to identify mutually beneficial options that get surplus food into the hands of those that need it most. Dairy farmers expressed their strong and historical support for participating in such systems and referenced the work undertaken by the U.S. dairy community to support address food insecurity when COVID-19 disrupted the food system.236238239240241242244245248249251Three groups reflected on how to achieve this vision: “A future where those involved in farming and animal husbandry are rewarded for their efforts while contributing to sustainability goals benefitting the natural environment and society at large.” Specific discussion focused on engaging with the public and youth specifically; building economic and government support; scaling the use of digesters; and providing support for small producers. Participants emphasized the importance of educating the public and younger generations on how their food is produced. They felt the public doesn’t fully grasp the significant investments farmers put into their work and there is little awareness about the economic reality that farmers face. The U.S. dairy community has done a great deal in terms of environmental sustainability across the supply chain (from farm gate, processing facility, transportation, retail and consumer-level), but participants encouraged the sector to continue to share with consumers what is being done and why. In addition, the younger generation may not fully appreciate the extensive career opportunities available in agriculture. Participants suggested land grant colleges and extension services can help to reach youth and build awareness and excitement for these career paths. Building greater economic stability for farmers was also viewed as essential. Participants reflected on the difficult economic situation that farmers face, coupled with demands to innovate and improve up environmental stewardship efforts and animal welfare standards. Farmers largely share these goals and are eager to play their role in supporting them, but often lack the capital and capabilities needed to introduce them. They discussed several opportunities to help address this need: cost-share programs, economic assessments, social support and knowledge-sharing amongst farmers, technical assistance and financial incentives. Importantly, they also encouraged the public to get curious about the great strides farmers have made and will continue to make; farmers work tirelessly to meet environmental targets and continually improve practices, despite difficult circumstances. Participants also pointed to the use of anerobic digesters as a unique opportunity to share the story of how the food system can provide alternative energy sources. Digesters are closed tanks which are used to break down organic matter such as cow manure and/or food waste through anaerobic digestion, creating biogas, which can be used to power the farm and communities, as well as to produce other materials. Participants believed it should be a priority to scale up the use of digesters and introduce them across the country for farms of all sizes and to look to community digesters. Finally, there was discussion of producers at all levels – but particularly small producers – trying to keep their farms running in addition to working towards enhanced environmental sustainability practices and animal care. These individuals need better support, including access to research and proven best practices. Within supply chains, corporations, cooperatives and processors can help create tracking systems, share expertise and incentivize farmers both within the U.S. and globally.237238239240241242243244245246248249250251There were relatively few areas of divergence between participants in this Dialogue. In many instances, these resolved themselves as participants evolved their opinions over the course of the discussion. However, specific and unresolved areas of divergence are listed below. • School meals: While participants agreed on the important role of schools for mitigating food insecurity and supporting growth and development, there were differing opinions and perspectives on the nutritional value and quality of the meals. • Digestors: It was also suggested by some participants that the use of digestors as a potential opportunity for food waste reduction has been done before and isn’t always successful, so greater research and experimentation was needed to make this a more effectively scaled solution. • Domains of sustainable food systems: Additional questions were raised by participants around the inherent tensions that exist amongst the four domains of sustainable food systems. While consumers may want more environmentally friendly foods, they may not be willing to pay more for those foods. Wages for those working on the farm must be balanced against investments in farm infrastructure and trainings. The discussions around culturally relevant meals for school children need to be considered alongside the desire for more localized food systems which – considering regionality and seasonality – may not be able to support diversity and selection of foods. Further, the necessary financial investments into equipment and training for schools to act on the Dialogue suggestions must not compete with funding used to offer free and reduced priced meals to students. • Funding: As more consumers and governments demand a more sustainable food system, funding for research and conservation efforts must be employed in addition to policy and regulations. As monetary resources are limited, recommendations must be prioritized which will inevitably mean lower priority recommendations remain unfunded and unrealized. A particular discussion was around whether the focus should be on legislation and policymakers to mandate changes, or for the farmers, researchers and school meal programs to receive more funding and investment ahead of legislation. Additionally, there was significant discussion around the role of compensation and incentive structures for ecosystem services; participants deemed this essential to increase the sustainability practices, improve farm economics and support livelihoods. But, there is tension with this goal and limited monetary resources. • Education: While there was much agreement on the topic of education, there was less agreement regarding who should be the target of the education efforts. As discussed above, audiences may need to be prioritized due to limited funding and resources as consumers, policymakers, children and health care professionals cannot all be top priority. • Animal welfare: While animal welfare is a priority for farmers, it was noted that actual legislation or mandates around welfare can be challenging and prevent farmers from responding quickly to changing science that would allow them to provide better care for their animals.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/DGA_2020-2025_ExecutiveSummary_English.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Earth-Day-Fact-SheetV8.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Game-Changer-Food-Security.pdfhttps://gcnf.org/https://www.usdairy.com/about-us/national-dairy-councilhttps://www.nature.org/en-us/https://www.usdec.org/https://agclimatealliance.com/https://www.mendeley.com/catalogue/d34a305a-5cba-3624-b636-3eaf250b0a57/https://nationaldairyfarm.com/https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32361106/https://ecosystemservicesmarket.org/https://fieldtomarket.org/

2021-05-20 19:28:13204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/11720/44

131091410111028212

El diálogo se organizó al alero del Observatorio sobre el Derecho a la Alimentación de Chile que está conformado por académicos y académicas de distintas Universidades del país, públicas y privadas y de distintos territorios del país. Cada integrante hizo una convocatoria a otros/as académicas/as interesados en el tema. Se promovió la invitación entre académicos/as de distintas disciplinas para conseguir un trabajo transdisciplinario durante el diálogoSe realizó una presentación inicial donde se expusieron los objetivos de la Cumbre y la metodología de trabajo que tendría el diálogo, a través de la conformación de grupos donde todos y todas podrían abiertamente exponer sus puntos de consenso y disenso en forma respetuosa. Luego se trabajó en grupos y se tomaron apuntes de todo lo expuesto, sin excluir la opinión de ningún asistente. Finalmente el diálogo se cerró con un plenario donde se expusieron las ideas centrales de cada grupo.Se recomienda la transdisciplinariedad en los diálogos, eso fortalece y enriquece mucho la discusión.

Yes

234238239247249El diálogo versó principalmente sobre el derecho a la alimentación en Chile y posibles estrategias de implementación. El contexto temático tiene relación con el actual proceso socio-político chileno que nos llevó a la construcción de una nueva constitución desde una hoja en blanco. Por otra parte el contexto epidemiológico nutricional nacional reflejado en altas cifras de obesidad y sobrepeso a través de todo el ciclo vital constituye un desafío país para la próxima década. Por último, la pandemia que ha aumentado la inseguridad alimentaria y el hambre especialmente en los grupos más vulnerables. Estos 3 factores contextuales, no muy distintos a lo que ocurre en otros países de América Latina, son un impulso para incorporar el derecho a la alimentación en la nueva Constitución, entendiendo el derecho a la alimentación como un derecho humano y parte de los derechos económicos, culturales, sociales y ambientales. En ese escenario se hace necesario reflexionar sobre la definición del derecho a la alimentación, pero también la necesidad de especificar los adjetivos que deberían acompañar al derecho por ejemplo, saludable, inocua, pertinente, sostenible, etc, así como de establecer sus formas de judicialización. Por último pensando en su constitucionalización, es importante también identificar la forma en que se podría y debería implementar este derecho, a través de leyes, políticas públicas, estrategias, programas y proyectos, de tal forma que contribuya en forma efectiva a mejorar la seguridad alimentaria, la alimentación y la condición nutricional de la población. En resumen la discusión versó sobre 5 preguntas planteadas: 1. ¿Es importante contar con el derecho a la alimentación? ¿y por qué? 2. ¿Cuáles son las barreras y gestión necesaria para la implementación? 3. ¿Cuáles son posibles soluciones? 4. ¿Cuáles son posibles formas de implementación? 5. ¿ Qué compromisos debería adquirir la academia?235238239240241247249 Es importante incorporar el DA en la nueva Constitución chilena ya que esta norma determina la actuación de todos los órganos del Estado, entre ellos el legislativo y ejecutivo. Desde el punto de vista de los ODS no es posible que un país se desarrolle si su población no se alimenta adecuadamente. Además es un derecho humano establecido en diferentes tratados internacionales a los que nuestro país adscribe.  Es necesario integrar el DA en la Constitución para que el tema no quede al arbitrio de los poderes y del sistema económico imperante, que lleva al fenómeno Obesidad- Hambre. La alimentación adecuada debe ser protegida.  El DA debe tener presente la situación de las personas más vulnerables, como aquellas en situación de pobreza, privadas de libertad, pueblos originarios, personas de menor nivel educacional y socioeconómico, niños/as y mujeres, que reflejan profundas e injustas desigualdades.  Las características que deberían acompañar el DA son: suficiente, permanente, de calidad, saludable, inocua, accesible, culturalmente pertinente, soberana, sostenible y sin discriminación.  El DA debe ser complementado con cambios estructurales, un modelo de desarrollo inclusivo, democrático y equitativo.  Es necesario establecer también los mecanismos de acceso a recursos judiciales, para hacer efectivo este derecho.  No basta con establecer el derecho a la alimentación en la Constitución, es necesario implementarlo, se da el ejemplo de países que lo tienen establecido y sin embargo sus problemas alimentario-nutricionales persisten. Eso puede poner en duda la necesidad de establecer este derecho en la Constitución. Se reitera el sentido del Estado de Derecho en el que todos los actores públicos y privados cumplen con el mandato de la Constitución.  Se explicitan 4 importantes barreras para avanzar en los temas alimentario-nutricionales en el país, los que deben ser tomados en cuenta: 1) el conocimiento en temas alimentario nutricionales, falta de educación; el conocimiento de las personas y del Estado respecto del DA, su sentido y su alcance. 2) la falta de respaldo jurídico por no estar este derecho en la Constitución, ni contar con una ley ad-hoc que permita su implementación; 3) barrera socio-cultural dado el consumo irreflexivo, impuesto por el poder ligado al modelo económico y de sociedad neoliberal imperante con una lógica de mercado difícil de romper; 4) Barrera política: mal entendimiento de los DESC y de la economía, y que incluye una barrera productiva ya que hoy no somos capaces de autoabastecernos como país, se privilegian las exportaciones y no hay apoyo a los pequeños productores.  Se discute sobre el modelo imperante, y la necesidad de un cambio para lograr sistemas alimentarios más equitativos y sostenibles. Se da el ejemplo de la competencia desequilibrada entre grandes productores, dueños del agua, de las tierras y de derechos marítimos vs pequeños productores agrícolas y pesqueros. Por ello es imprescindible descentralizar el poder para reorientar el modelo productivo del país; políticas y programas de soberanía alimentaria con aplicación en los territorios, con participación de productores locales, que aseguren los alimentos en el nivel local, de acuerdo a ciclos estacionales cadenas cortas.  En ese sentido, además de incorporar el derecho a la alimentación como se plantea al inicio, existe la necesidad de una institucionalidad en la gestión que garantice su implementación.  Es relevante para la implementación del DA, la creación de una Ley sobre alimentación y nutrición intersectorial desde su diseño.  Es necesario hacerse cargo del alto costo de los alimentos saludables, más en pandemia, debería abordarse con subsidios estatales o impuestos. Las políticas públicas deben dar pleno cumplimiento al derecho consagrado en la Constitución.  Se releva la necesidad de que la población tenga acceso a información y educación en alimentación y nutrición.  La participación de la población en el diseño de las políticas públicas es clave en el proceso democrático de toma de decisiones y de implementación.  La Academia tiene un rol primordial en desarrollo de capital humano, en investigación-acción para promover la optimización las cadenas alimentarias, incidir en políticas públicas y vincularse con el medio para dar a conocer la información contribuyendo a democratizar el conocimiento.  Se deben democratizar las Universidades, que salgan a los territorios, dar espacios a la comunidad, promoviendo la ecología de saberes.  Para abordar globalmente los problemas de alimentación y nutrición, más allá de un nivel nacional o regional, se propone el desarrollo de un Convenio Marco al alero de Naciones Unidas siguiendo el modelo de lo realizado en tabaco, que permita además alinear el quehacer.236238239247249La conclusiones más relevantes fueron: 1. Es necesario que los países incluyan el derecho a la alimentación, como derecho humano, en la Constitución para dar garantía de acceso a toda la población. Para Chile el proceso constituyente actual es una oportunidad ineludible. 2. Deben definirse el derecho a la alimentación adecuada como aquella saludable, inocua, suficiente, permanente, culturalmente pertinente, soberana y sostenible. 3. El derecho a la alimentación debe acompañarse también de mecanismos de judicialización constitucional. 4. La implementación efectiva del derecho a la alimentación requiere de una institucionalidad que controle y monitoree su cumplimiento, además requiere de una ley nacional de alimentación y nutrición y de un conjunto de políticas públicas, estrategias y programas que hagan efectiva su implementación. 5. El derecho a la alimentación y todos sus componentes descritos no están desvinculados del modelo político, economico, productivo y social de los países por lo que se requiere de redefiniciones integrales. 6. Con una mirada más amplia y entendiendo que la alimentación es un tema político y global se propone el desarrollo de un convenio marco sobre alimentación y nutrición al alero de Naciones Unidas para abordar la gama de problemas de este ámbito que afectan a diversos territorios. 7. La academia tiene un rol relevante desde su quehacer en la formación de capital humano, de investigación y de vinculación con el medio, para que el derecho a la alimentación sea efectivo.237238247250Aparece en la discusión la paradoja de algunos países que teniendo el derecho a la alimentación en sus constituciones, sus poblaciones sufren graves problemas de alimentación y nutrición. También un tema de debate fue la relación entre el mundo académico y la industria.

2021-05-20 20:59:29204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/10553/41

1101010353020545655555055525525101021055105208

The guest list was curated for diverse perspectives, ensuring cross-stakeholder views were represented. Diversity was identified as key to having a meaningful dialogue. Prior to the event, participants were provided with a participant guide which set out the Principles of Engagement, outlined the objectives for constructive dialogue and it also explained Chatham House rules to encourage open conversation. During the event: Plenary panelists were coached to emphasize that respectful dialogue (including disagreement where necessary) was encouraged, and the convenor for each session also emphasized the Chatham House rules and the need for respectful engagement in the breakout sessions. After the event: communications or reporting of the breakout sessions has not and will not be attributable to attendees.CCA and NCC strove to curate a room full of experts, individuals who knew enough about the subject matter to engage in constructive conversation but without curating an echo chamber. The end result was a constructive yet critical conversation. By choosing to address 'grazing livestock' instead of any one type of livestock there were differing perspectives, production methods and supply chains involved. It allowed for a richer conversation and learning opportunities among the membership.Providing a participant guide is a useful tool for ensuring there is an understanding of the format of the event and for setting expectations on the tone of the dialogue.

Yes

234239244As 2021 marks the first world food summit in 25 years, actors in the global food system, including the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association (CCA) and the Nature Conservancy of Canada (NCC) are following closely. A key concern of Canadian beef producers and their stakeholders is the global forum’s focus on reducing meat consumption for environmental and health reasons. There are unquestionably nutritional and environmental benefits to the production and consumption of grazing livestock products, and it is feared these benefits are being overshadowed by a global anti-meat narrative. CCA and NCC have convened an independent dialogue with the goal of ensuring these benefits are part of global conversation. “Our sustainability practices in Canada are already unparalleled and should be looked to as an example. Painting a production system with one brush will not lead to the most globally sustainable outcomes. What’s more, even though we are leaders in sustainable beef production, we focus on continuous improvement.” This dialogue began with the principle that livestock, particularly grazing livestock, has a beneficial place in the food system but challenged participants to critically reflect on continuous improvement and what is needed to achieve increasingly ambitious targets. The dialogue was thematically designed to respond to Action Track 2, Shift to Sustainable Consumption Patterns. Action Track 2 was chosen as it encompasses the breadth of the supply chain, from production to consumption, something the convening organizations were well-positioned to speak to. Moreover, Action Track 2 emphasizes reducing food waste, a niche grazing livestock are excellently suited for. Entitled Grazing Livestock: Building Sustainable Protein Supply Chains the three-part dialogue series explored the vital role that grazing livestock play in providing both nutritious and nature positive solutions for Canada. The event brought together a diverse set of stakeholders for a bold, solutions-oriented discussion on sustainable diets. The sessions discussed best practices and challenged attendees to answer what’s next, what’s missing and how the sector can do better. In keeping with the UN’s recommendations, inclusivity was incorporated throughout all stages of planning. In choosing to have a grazing livestock conversation, various livestock producers were invited and included in the dialogue, including sheep, beef, bison and goat; roughly 30% of participants were primary producers. Environmental Non-Governmental Organizations (ENGOs) were also strongly represented. There was a healthy presence of academia from both a production and consumption perspective. Federal and provincial policy makers were at the table, as was the supply chain. In all, more than 100 diverse stakeholders came together to reflect on grazing livestock’s role in the food system and what is required for continuous improvement. These dialogues also followed the recommended format for Independent Dialogues, with half of each 2-hour session devoted to small group discussion.235239244249Despite a broad conversation spanning the breadth of the supply chain, key themes resurfaced in each session: 1. Producer incentives for environmental practices: Participants noted a link between environmental practices and a producers’ economic well-being. While the argument of ‘doing what is right’ is strong and resonates with many producers, a sustainable solution is one that compensates producers for their environmental endeavors. Compensation ensures that producers remain competitive, and thus able to stay in business and continue doing (and improving) on best management practices. “Greatest challenge for conservation groups is loss of habitat which is driven by economics. Best way to conserve grasslands is ensuring that livestock industry and those using these lands remain profitable.” 2. The importance of collaboration: Collaboration was identified as key to achieving environmental outcomes. Collaboration includes between industries, between academia and producers, different stakeholders and across supply-chains. Whatever environmental initiative, framework or metric proposed, it will be more successful where it is created in collaboration with various interest groups. 3. No one-size-fits-all solution: Participants balked at the notion that there is any one silver-bullet to ‘improving the food system’. The food system is too complex to have broad global policy recommendations. Regional differences must be taken into account when recommending environmental best-practices. There is the recognition that best-practices may even differ from farm to farm, let alone from country to country. “Livestock markets contribute to the overall system; removing one part of the system will have unintended consequences, and making sweeping global dietary or food production recommendations doesn’t account for the variety of situations, challenges/realities in different areas” 4. The role of government: There is a strong role for government in creating policy that enables sustainable production and consumption however any such policy must be created with a ‘food-systems’ lens to avoid inadvertent net-negative outcomes. Such as, for example, the proposed Canadian greenhouse gas offset credit system and its potential to drive unintentional native grasslands conversion. Governments can play a key role in research for cross-cutting environmental information (i.e. valuation of ecosystem goods and services as one example) which the private sector can then use for benchmarking. Flowing therefrom, governments can provide assistance with respect to research & technology transfer and ensuring producers are correctly incentivized to adopt beneficial practices. 5. Diversity is imperative to building resiliency: Attendees noted that there are many benefits to integrating different systems, and indeed, integrated systems are more resilient ones. By integrating field and livestock production, one operations’ waste becomes another operations’ nutrients. Croplands which incorporate a livestock component are more drought tolerant than lands which do not. “By using sheep, the sector helps create a biodiverse environment and reduce amount of GHGs generated vs mechanical grazing of vegetation. Sheep and goats are an effective tool against invasive species. When sheep graze orchards or vineyards the fruit is healthier and there is reduced pesticide usage. Benefits of livestock production like these need to be considered.” 6. Education of consumers: Participants alluded to the importance of consumers several times. This was in the context of the perceived divide between consumers and production practices as well as the challenges of conveying complex environmental initiatives to the consumer. Consumers were identified as imperative to ensuring ‘sustainable consumption’ because consumers drive market trends and are the buyers of the product. Game Changing solution? (Please note, more detail is included in the attached report) The Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Beef (CRSB) was mentioned as an example or embodiment of the key themes several times. The CRSB is an initiative that embraces complexity, fosters stakeholder involvement and collaboration to identify solutions. As all of these elements are required to advance the food system, CCA and NCC propose the framework upon which the CRSB rests as the “game-changing solution” sought by the UN Food Summit process. One of the focuses for Action Track 2 is the reduction of food waste and in achieving this objective, grazing livestock are a natural fit. Ruminants turn products that are inedible by humans into a nutrient-dense protein option.236239244249During Session 1, participants examined the beginning of the supply chain, with the production perspective. The plenary consisted of experts who discussed how grazing practices interact with the landscape and biodiversity and the producers who are employing these practices. In the breakouts, participants were questioned as to the importance of sustainability metrics, the role of government and policy in fostering environmental outcomes, the need for collaboration, and addressing trade-offs. Of note, participants flagged that not all sustainable opportunities require trade-offs (i.e. food waste) but where trade-offs exist, there is a role for government in reducing them by ensuring policies are created through a holistic ‘food-system’ lens. The role of government is also critical in the ongoing research and information transfer that is needed to develop and disseminate sustainability metrics and benchmarks. A wide range of suggestions were provided in response to what the grazing livestock industry should be measuring to achieve a sustainable food system including: biodiversity (both above and below ground), water, emissions and nutritional benefit of the end product.236239244249Session 2 focused on sustainable consumption, what that means and what it looks like. Participants heard from academic experts on livestock’s role in the food system, the importance of protein in the diet, food waste and consumer trends. During the breakouts, attendees responded to the challenges in creating consumer demand for foods produced sustainably, the role of policy and government to incentivize sustainable eating habits and the intersection of sustainable products and food security. During this session, supply chain coordination was highlighted as essential. “For some livestock sectors, the whole-of-supply chain-framework is not yet established and it is a big undertaking. CRSB is an example of a whole of supply chain framework.” Environmental production metrics and initiatives are delivered through the supply chain, one missing link can negate the effectiveness of efforts either earlier or later on. The government plays a role in ensuring sustainability frameworks have baseline research and incentives to exist. Overall, there is a strong need for a multi-stakeholder approach in building these sustainable supply chains. As for the intersection of food security and sustainability, it was noted that the two are not mutually exclusive. Both can be addressed by technologies and innovations to reduce resource use and decrease price. However, this is not always the case and food security, and livestock’s role in achieving food security globally is critical. “Many developing countries and areas are very dependent on livestock for food security; recommending to remove/limit livestock production or reduce meat diets will further exacerbate food security issues in many areas of the world, with nutrition as key issue in developing nations.”236239244249Finally, Session 3 explored the whole of supply chain, bridging the gap between nature-based production practices and sustainable consumption. Experts during this plenary session looked at metrics of sustainable production and examples of how to turn best practices into consumption. As this was the final session, participants responded to high-level questions such as what is needed to make livestock production as efficient as possible, measuring sustainable supply chain and what the world should know about Canada’s grazing livestock sector. In response, the triple bottom line of economic, environmental and social aspects were referred to several times: “To be as efficient and sustainable as possible we need to invest in research and make technology available to livestock producers. Adoption of new technology has to be financially sustainable, and tools are needed to make transitions to more sustainable practices less of a financial burden. In addition to technology being available, knowledge needs to be accessible to producers. Lastly, consumers acceptance of science and innovation in agriculture needs to be maintained or gained.” There was a recognition that while Canada’s livestock sector has demonstrated exceptional sustainability performance, there are nevertheless early adopters and late adopters. What is needed to ensure everyone implements and benefits from best practices is information sharing, technology transfer and incentives. This can be achieved in many ways. As a final note, Canada’s livestock sector wants the world to know that “sustainable production of livestock is not an uncomfortable conversation for Canada – we care, and we want to do better.”237239244CCA and NCC’s independent dialogue created a meeting place for a variety of voices across the grazing livestock supply chain. By design, the dialogue’s virtual room of experts ensured a critical look at what Canada’s grazing livestock industry is doing now and how it can do better. That said, areas of divergence came from how such improvements could be achieved. It was recognized that not all grazing livestock practices are shining examples of best management, and that there is room for improvement. Sustainability is a journey not a destination. In order to continue on that journey food systems must continue to embrace complexity, foster stakeholder involvement and collaboration to identify solutions. The UN Food Systems’ Summit should not condemn any one type of food production but rather recognize that all systems are interconnected and have opportunities for continual improvement, including livestock, and work with livestock stakeholders to ensure mutual goals of sustainable consumption patterns are reached.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Official-Report-CCA-NCC-FINAL.pdfhttps://www.cattle.cahttps://www.natureconservancy.ca/en/https://crsb.ca

2021-05-21 10:04:39205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/5032/70

08585552510111793513101241031365964120213157590327233147

The timeliness of the dialogue was highlighted in the invitation letter/email as well as in the various interventions in events preceding the webinar. It was also stressed that through the dialogue discussions people have an opportunity to get their voice heard in national policy work and also in the international fora. All parties were invited and the invitation was free; further distribution to colleagues was encouraged. The invitation was also distributed via the existing network of the research program on food systems operated by the Academy of Science. The key researchers of that program were engaged in the dialogue planning and implementation.Food systems issues are largely discussed among the stakeholders and also in public. Thus, there is a readiness and experience for such discussion. There is an overall tradition of civil society consultation in any field of policy planning.It was made clear that this dialogue does not necessarily aim at reaching a national consensus or government position, but aims at listening views of different parties and angles. The government position will be prepared within the government and this dialogue is taken into consideration. This was important in order to free the dialogue from the political process.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246248249250251This was the main event of the national dialogue in Finland. It is considered as phase 2 dialogue: looking for ideas and innovative solutions for the food system. This time, no regional (subnational) dialogue events were organized: the relatively small country is rather homogeneous in consumption patterns, food markets, farming and natural resources. All five aspects (Action Tracks) were considered and the WGs were divided accordingly. The dialogue webinar was structured as follows: 1. Opening by the top administrator of the two ministries (Min of For. Affairs and Min of Ag&For) and three introductory speeches: FSS process and the dialogue (Dr David Nabarro), systems approach (Dr Elina Lehikoinen), EU-framework (Director General Minna-Mari Kaila) 2. The meeting was split into five AT working groups, led by top experts from the academia and administration; Introduction by the chair, open input discussion, targeted discussion on 3 to 5 central topics picked up from the discussion by the chair; drafting of the report by the chair and his/her assistant expert). 3. Reporting of the WGs; supplementary comments; synthesis by the curator All five AT-base working groups were given four questions: 1. What are the special stengths of Finland on which future food systems could be built? 2. What kind of (painful) choices we may need to make, when approaching more sustainable food systems and more healthy diets? 3. Are there opportunities or potential solutions, which could provide with an utter change or a giant leap towards sustainable systems? 4. What do we have in our model or in our practices that could serve as an example or a benchmark for the rest of the world? The members of the working groups either spoke to the group or provided answers in the chat column of the video meeting. Chat discussions in the five working groups produced more than 40 pages of ideas/opinions. It was saved and will be analyzed afterwards. A synthesis is made available for all participants, and for the organizing ministries. Chairs of the WGs made a quick compilation of the discussion and crystallized the views expressed in 3 to 5 main points that were discussed further. Upon those discussions, the chairs, together with the nominated expert assistants edited a report for the plenary session of the afternoon.235238239240241242The division in 5 AT groups helped discussion of this vast range of questions. Still, the chairs of WGs were advised not to be too strict in limiting discussion under one headline: this is a matter of systems analysis. After all, several remarks were mentioned in many WGs and merit to be raised as main findings: - Stability, trust and tradition of cooperation in the society supports the good functioning of the food system, and vice versa. This includes a well established system of food safety control, plant and animal health and wealth standards, high veterinary standards, consumer protection and equal opportunities. - Existing structures and natural strengths of a community provide with a starting point in building sustainability. It would be risky to force something that does not fit to the tradition and circumstances. - Holistic approach is necessary: One Health; nexus thinking (food-forest-water-energy); all aspects of sustainability (Economic, environmental, social and cultural); local-national-regional-global. - School, preschool and early childhood meal service and nutritional education are the key for healthier eating habits. Finland has a long record and evidence on this. - In short: More fruits&vegetables and less meat for sustainable diets. In Finland, the comparative advantage of agriculture lies in ruminants and especially dairy. This controversy needs to be tackled through improving the carbon balance of dairy production and shifting to less meat and dairy but concentrating on sustainably produced quality produce. - consumer awareness, climate conscience is increasing. We need better tool for providing credible information for the consumer in making informed decisions. Furthermore, the consumer should be motivated and ready to pay a fair (=higher) price for sustainable products. - Diversity is the solution, not only in terms of biodiversity, but also diversity in production, diversity in income sources, diversity of marketing and procurement channels, diversity in diets, diversity of solutions in general.236238244245246248249250AT1 Outcome - focus areas 1) Zero Hunger 2) Access to Nutritious Food ja 3) Food Safety. Hunger and nutrition problems globally are enormous. However, hunger is also present in Finland, there are weekly around 20 000 people in receiving food assistance and well over half of Finnish adults are overweight; children’s overweight is especially worrisome. Finland's strengths are food safety and one of the special features is the successful implementation of the One Health concept. Food is traceable and the use of antibiotics is low. However, there aren’t systematic practices to identify and combat food fraud in Finland. So far, confidence in food quality and safety is high in Finland, but food fraud is a big trend globally. Nutritionally, Finland's strengths are catering systems in the public sector (schools, public services). Comprehensive public food services reduce nutrition inequalities. Nutrition education (e.g. so-called one plate model) and home economics education (cooking classes, etc.) at schools are important. Resource efficiency (e.g. in livestock farming) was considered a strength in primary production. Many considered the co-operation and trust between actors in the entire food chain creates good basis for efficient work, although there are also challenges in terms of income distribution between actors. Cooperation between the authorities is excellent, and has helped to improve food safety. Digital innovations are used to increase resource efficiency and cooperation. Solutions are needed for the use of peatlands (which account for 10 % of Finnish agricultural land) and research on this is being carried out actively. Circular economy and biogas production would help reduce the food system's dependency on fossil fuels. Dependency on protein imports could be reduced, for example, by increasing the cultivation of peas and fava beans, but on the other hand, the cultivation of oilseeds has decreased and the need for imports for feed has increased. It would be important to secure economic opportunities and incentives for domestic protein and oilseed production. Reducing meat production was highlighted and it was considered important to switch to plant-based, so-called ‘one planet’ diet. Systemic changes are needed in Finland, especially to reduce meat consumption. Meat can still be consumed but it is important to decrease the amount. Increasing fish consumption was highlighted as important. Aquaculture has developed enormously and, for example, the Finnish ‘Baltic Sea feed’ is an example of good innovation. New innovations and consumer-friendly products are needed. Reducing food waste (at the consumer end in Finland) is also necessary. Nexus thinking. For example, forest, water, food and energy are all related. Land use plays a key role in all of these and sensible land use solutions are needed. Finland could set an example globally through One Health activities. Many Finnish strengths (food safety, cooperation, etc.) are combined in the One Health approach. At the same time, the approach forces to break the silos between operators, as cooperation is essential. Plant-based food innovations, school nutrition education, publicly supported school meals and home economics education were also mentioned. Food traceability, digital solutions and land use solutions were also highlighted. In addition, the reduction of food waste (discount products in grocery stores, etc.), the transfer of know-how and investment to the global south, nature education, circular aquaculture (aquaponics) and vertical cultivation were mentioned.236239243244245246248249250251The members of the group were first invited to mention one specific feature related to the four questions given (look the “Main findings”). The chair proposed five aggregated topics upon the answers, to be elaborated further: 1. National dietary recommendations and their implementation. Derived from the Nordic recommendations, the national recommendations clearly are a strength in the endeavor to strive for better diets. The population, especially men, eat too little fruits and vegetables, too much red meat and saturated fats, use too much salt. A consensus among food chain actors helps in guiding the consumers towards better diets. Sustainability needs to be considered together with health aspects in renewing recommendations. The recommendations should be guiding principle for the processing industry, trade, public procurement and in the institutional catering (schools, pre-school, university, working place etc). The recommendations have credibility and authority in the consumers’ eyes. 2. Nutritional education for children and youth. The whole package of a) birth&child counseling bureau b) preschool meal&nutritional education, c) free school meal&education d) subsidized meals for students in higher education provides with an effective tool for dietary guidance. More attention needed in improving quality of vegetable-based meals. The curricula on primary and secondary level school includes home economics, health&nutrition education and sustainability studies. Aggressive marketing of junk food is difficult to combat; new social media could be the channel to reach young people. School&home&leasure activities must work together. Sociao-economic background of children plays a role in adaptation of healthy habits. 3. Product innovations and the quality of food. New innovations, such as vegetable protein foods, low salt products, avoidance of saturated fats are showing the way: product development advances very fast now. Voluntary nutritional commitments of the processing industry is a promising way for healthy meals. Healthy products need to be more attractive, affordable and easily to consumed. 4. Strenghtening research & capitalizing its results. Open access & transparency of science is necessary. Political decision must base on science. More research and data is needed in the field of carbon&water footprint, environmental impact in order to give clear and simple guidance. 5. Improving co-operation between food actors. National&regional characteristics need to be considered. Civil society/non-governmental organisations, schools, state authorities etc. working together.236240243244245246248249250AT3 outcome The tradition of dialogue and cooperation among actors, including cooperation between farmers, is a considerable strength in the Finnish society. It creates trust. Furthermore, there is a well established system of production control; rules are followed and therefore products are safe (no antibiotic residues, free from salmonella etc) and traceable. Animal wealth meets high standards. Also, there is a good preparedness for adapting new standards, technologies and market opportunities. Farmers and other actors are well educated and therefore the ability to place oneself in a larger context is good; understanding food systems framework, One Health thinking and food-water-forest-energy-nexus of natural resources, for instance. Animal production and especially ruminant husbandry, based on home grown grass, is a strength. There is room for improvement in regard to climate and environment challenges, but cattle husbandry is the sector where Finland has comparative advantages. Sweet water fisheries is another strength. It needs further development work. The Baltic Sea herring is largely underutilized resource of protein and fish oil. Digitalisation and data, comprising data on clients, research, technology, meteorological information, quality systems, labeling, monitoring of return and profitability, measurement of carbon balance and foot print etc. Decisions for better economic efficiency and risk management can be made only based on accurate information. A comprehensive extension and consultancy for farmers, based on research, is the way to improve both economy and efficiency of natural resource use. A concrete example is the burning issue of peatland fields; improvement can only be reached by thorough scientific analysis and locally tailored solutions. Sustainability has its price. Accountability, ethical and fair production pratices will be reflected in food prices, and this needs to be accepted. Raising food prices would make possible a path different from the conventional model of getting bigger. Making smaller units viable would improve the regional balance and counteract segregation of animal husbandry and plant production. This, on its part, would work for better animal health, state of our nature through improved possibilities of outdoor grazing. If sustainability is to be a criterion of consumer choice, information for such choice needs to be easily available. Various labeling systems on sustainability and environmental impact do provide with information, but there are open questions on the cost distribution of such systems. Often such systems are administratively very heavy. It is plausible to develop agricultural production practices towards sustainability, no doubt. All agricultural production models could benefit from adapting best practices of circular economy, organic and regenerative farming.236241243245246247248249250251Outcome AT4 One of the important things behind the well-functioning food system in Finland is the overall stability of the society, trust, gender equality and women’s role in the society, the world’s best school system, investments in knowledge and research. All this makes possible a well-functioning food system. Thus, societal stability is both a prerequisite for and a result of well-functioning food system. The tradition of working together and agricultural co-operative movement is a strength of the society. Combating climate change and policy measures in the field of land use – especially on peatland use – are impacting agriculture, with regional variations; certain regions are under a heavy pressure. The centralized model needs on its side a decentralized and local model of production. Food systems need to be more versatile. This would improve consumer choice and would increase resilience. The traditional food systems and cultures of the indigenous peoples must be supported and given change to evolve. The revolution of food technologies might not have much impact within 10 to 15 years, but in the longer term, we might need to reconsider our conventional perception on food. Improving equitability of income distribution means also that some parts of the society need to surcease their privileges. A sentiment of social depreciation is linked with resistance against change. Finland would have to offer to other countries its experience in knowledge systems, education and research. Know-how in plant breeding is a specific expertise, as well as the high level skills in blue bioeconomy. The model of equal partnerships could serve as a benchmark for other countries. Trust and cooperation lead to efficient use of resources and equitable distribution of profit. This model does not necessarily need big entities nor heavy technologies.236242244246247248249250251AT5 output There is a long tradition of collaboration amongst various actors of the society, and between the actors along the food chain as well. Good examples are the strong position of the co-operative movement in agriculture and food, and the sophisticated system of national security of supply across the value chain. Resilience is an issue of the society at large: the structure of the economy need to cheer sustainability and resilience, take account of externalities and invest in trust, diversity and innovation. Large sweet water and groundwater resources, suitable climate for efficient grass production, and, as a result of them, strong ruminant-based animal production; attention for animal wealth and health, including non-existence of salmonella, sophisticated veterinary control; relatively small scale of enterprises: this is a combination to success. Use of veterinary medication, antibiotics in particular, is very restricted, but still, combatting AMR needs targeted effort, nationally and internationally. Equal treatment, dialogue, symmetric availability of information, transparency and negotiation structures on prices creates trust and provides with opportunities for learning and innovation. Here lies also a weak point in Finland: fair distribution of added value along the food chain – better rules are needed. Poor profitability and future perspectives in agriculture are linked with difficulties in attracting young people to agricultural education and jobs, and also the increasing need to recruit foreign labor for seasonal work. There is an imminent need to decrease the dependence on imported production inputs and their price fluctuation. In addition to foreign labor, feed protein and feed additives are increasingly risky dependences of imports. At least partial solutions to avoid dependency and vulnerability could be a better functioning circular markets of nutrients, improved systems of waste management, decentralized biogas production and alike. Animal and plant breeding needs to aim at changes that are not easily predictable. Diversity as a principle of breeding must be present, together with productivity objectives. Diversity of the rural landscape contribute to biodiversity and help to combat climate change. A diverse rural landscape is better apt for resisting harmful insects and pests. Nutritional recommendations and public awareness of healthy diets, including school meals, nutritional education, mother and child counseling system provide with a holistic system for sustainable eating habits. A global benchmark. Most important thing is to reduce externalization of the resource use footprint, environmental footprint and social footprint of our food system, i.e. impact of imports must be included in the calculation. Therefore, local production, based on local inputs and comparative advantage is an important opportunity in the global division of labor. An example: comparative advantage of ruminant-based production, efficient silage-based feed, in spite of relatively short growing season, resulting self-sufficiency in protein, abundant water resources, high level of animal wealth and health, contributing to energy independence, climate resilience and biodiversity. The social impact of the Finnish food system (rights of the workers and farmers) needs special attention. Due diligence principles, social responsibility, rule-based criteria of contracting and transparent market information can together improve the social resilience of the food chain.237238239240241242244245246249250There are clearly points of controversy, but this dialogue did not suffer from the existence and awareness of them. It was about finding solutions for complex problems. Areas of divergence: - reduction of climate impact of meat&dairy and peatland culture vs. importance and comparative advantage of dairy production in Finland and especially in certain regions with peatland, importance and nutritional value of meat&dairy in traditional diets. - traditional eating habits vs. vegetarian/vegan diets - economies of scale in agriculture vs. diversity, social and environmental concerns - strict rules in sustainability&traceability of domestic foods vs. cheap imported food with lacking information of origin

2021-05-21 10:38:38204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/13544/172

011575166855291211132940491183219151173561351442722109

Los Principios han estado presentes en toda la organización del Diálogo. Todos los participantes se comprometieron a su cumplimiento. En particular, se ha hecho especial hincapié en garantizar que el Diálogo fuera diverso, invitando a múltiples partes interesadas; y que se respetaran todas las opiniones. En las sesiones de preparación con los facilitadores, se ha insistido en el cumplimento de los Principios.Para lograr una visión lo más variada y amplia posible se ha dado voz a representantes de todos los eslabones de la cadena de valor y se han tomado en cuenta todas sus consideraciones por igual, independientemente del grupo al que pertenecen y de su cargo. Han tenido representación grupos de interés tales como consumidores, ganaderos, ONG, empresas, retail, veterinarios, ingenieros agrónomos, otros profesionales, investigadores, representantes de las administraciones públicas (nacionales y locales), profesionales de la comunicación, representantes políticos, etc., con un reparto por géneros equilibrado, y amplia representación por rangos de edad. Todos han estado representados en este Diálogo Independiente, todos han tenido oportunidad de expresar su opinión, y todas las opiniones han sido planteadas y escuchadas de un modo respetuoso. En las sesiones plenarias y en las diferentes salas, se ha resaltado la necesidad especialmente de actuar con urgencia, y los compromisos de la Cumbre, ser respetuosos, reconocer la complejidad de los sistemas alimentarios, y adoptar un enfoque inclusivo.Deben incluirse como principios rectores en toda la organización del Diálogo. En especial, creemos importante que los invitados al Diálogo tengan un perfil lo más variado posible.

Yes

234238239240241242243244248249250251El presente Diálogo Independiente ha buscado establecer una amplia visión sobre los retos y desafíos que afronta la cadena ganadero-cárnica a nivel global para seguir adaptándose a los nuevos sistemas alimentarios; todo ello para alcanzar los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible (ODS), a través de una alimentación sostenible y resiliente. En el mundo globalizado actual, la forma en que se producen los alimentos evoluciona de manera constante, y del mismo modo la manera de consumirlos. Por este motivo, son muchos los factores que debemos tener presentes a la hora de adaptarnos a las nuevas exigencias que van surgiendo. En primer lugar, se deben abordar cambios para avanzar en una producción más sostenible que contribuya a la lucha contra el cambio climático a través de medidas que permitan reducir las emisiones y la huella de carbono y de la aplicación de tecnologías que permitan disminuir el impacto en el entorno. En todo caso, para ello es necesario también partir de la situación real del sector y tener en cuenta que modelos de producción, como el europeo, han logrado grandes avances en aspectos como la sostenibilidad, el bienestar animal o la bioseguridad y se ha marcado ambiciosos retos para lograr un impacto climático neutro en las próximas décadas. El Diálogo independiente buscaba reflexionar sobre la manera más efectiva de implementar esas políticas ya en marcha e introducir nuevas medidas que faciliten la consecución de los objetivos. Por otro lado, nos encontramos en un sistema alimentario complejo formado por una gran variedad de elementos que debemos tener en cuenta -sociales, económicos, medioambientales, demandas del consumidor- mientras el sector ganadero-cárnico cumple con su servicio a la sociedad para ofrecerle un suministro de proteínas de calidad, seguras y asequibles para el conjunto de los ciudadanos, ofreciendo además una información transparente. En este sentido, también se han analizado los avances realizados en materias como innovación, seguridad alimentaria, trazabilidad o etiquetado y cómo fortalecerlas apoyándonos en las nuevas tecnologías. Asimismo, es preciso tener en cuenta el impacto de los sistemas ganadero-cárnicos en las zonas rurales tanto en aspectos sociales, económicos, de empleo y de vertebración del territorio como en la lucha contra la despoblación y la contribución a la gestión de los espacios naturales.2352382392402412422432442462482492502511. Importancia del Sistema Alimentario Ganadero-Cárnico La actividad Ganadero-Cárnica forma parte esencial e inseparable de los Sistemas Alimentarios, tanto en los países en desarrollo como en los desarrollados. El progreso económico y social conlleva una mayor demanda de alimentos de origen animal. 2. Especial responsabilidad de la Unión Europea en el apoyo de sus Sistemas Alimentarios Sostenibles La Unión Europea ya cuenta con normativas muy exigentes en materia medioambiental, así como con proyectos e iniciativas para promover Sistemas Alimentarios Sostenibles. 3. El concepto o criterio de “Sostenibilidad Integral” es un factor de competitividad y diferenciación La “Sostenibilidad” entendida en función de su contribución a la supervivencia del planeta, es un propósito indeclinable y una exigencia básica de cualquier actividad económica y de cualquier enfoque político y social; e implica el mantenimiento en el tiempo. 4. Importancia de la Producción Ganadero-Cárnica como instrumento básico de la Sostenibilidad del Medio Rural La Producción Ganadero-Cárnica es un pilar fundamental e insustituible del Sistema Alimentario Mundial, y además, es imprescindible como protector y conservador del Medio Rural y de los numerosos modelos de Biodiversidad y Patrimonios Naturales y Culturales y muy especialmente como freno al despoblamiento. 5. Máxima prioridad del Bienestar Animal El modelo de producción de porcino implantado en España y, en general, en la Unión Europea, es el más avanzado y exigente del mundo. La normativa europea exige condiciones de alimentación y manejo pensadas específicamente para garantizar el óptimo bienestar y trato de los animales, en las granjas, en el transporte, y en los procesos de sacrificio. 6. Eficiencia de los sistemas de producción de alimentos En todos los sistemas alimentarios sostenibles deberá buscarse la máxima eficiencia en los sistemas productivos. El sector ganadero-cárnico ha llevado a cabo un importante incremento de su eficiencia en los modelos productivos y su continuada contribución a la sostenibilidad y al bienestar animal, reciclando materias primas y sus productos, ahorrando fertilizantes procurando un bajo nivel de generación de desperdicios alimentarios, reduciendo la huella hídrica y energética, etc. 7. Los Sistemas Alimentarios Sostenibles tienen como misión básica contribuir a erradicar el hambre y la desnutrición en todo el mundo El Sistema Alimentario Ganadero-Cárnico es un potente instrumento de lucha contra el hambre y la desnutrición. Los productos de origen animal, y muy especialmente la carne, son imprescindibles para alimentar a los seres humanos, especialmente desde edades muy tempranas y con ello atender sus necesidades de desarrollo físico e intelectual. 8. Importancia de una dieta y una nutrición saludable y equilibrada La producción cárnico-ganadera debe ser un instrumento decisivo para la consecución de esa nutrición equilibrada, al aportar proteínas a precio asequible y de alto valor nutricional, confirmando la relación existente entre mayor esperanza de vida y mayor consumo de proteína animal. 9. Condicionantes de un Sistema Alimentario Auténticamente Sostenible Es indudable la importancia y necesidad de que se produzcan “Alimentos Sostenibles” desde el punto de vista medioambiental; pero también que tales alimentos sean SALUDABLES, ASEQUIBLES, EQUITATIVOS Y RESILIENTES, 10. Cadenas Alimentarias Globales y Soberanía Alimentaria La globalización de los sistemas alimentarios se ha traducido en la configuración de cadenas alimentarias globales, de forma que los alimentos y las materias primas cruzan diferentes fronteras en unos y otros sentidos. El 10% de todos los intercambios internacionales corresponde a alimentos y materias primas alimentarias; y semejantes reflexiones habría que hacer en relación con la globalización de los sistemas de comercialización y distribución física. 11. Impacto socioeconómico de la Producción Ganadero-Cárnica El Sector Agroalimentario, constituye uno de los principales soportes de la economía de cualquier país; y en concreto el Sistema Alimentario Ganadero-Cárnico es uno de los más importantes y potentes motores de generación de empleo y riqueza en cualquier zona mundial, con amplísima y arraigada implantación económica y social, especialmente en el Medio Rural en el que representa un instrumento especialmente importante en la lucha contra el despoblamiento. 12. Comunicación, Información y Crisis de “Reputación” de la Producción Ganadero-Cárnica Es absolutamente necesario y urgente que el Sistema Alimentario Ganadero-Cárnico transmita a la sociedad la misión que cumple, su labor, su contribución a la nutrición y salud de los consumidores, y sus esfuerzos y logros en materia de medio ambiente y bienestar animal.2362382392402412422432442482492502511. SOSTENIBILIDAD 1.- Además de la producción de alimentos, todas las actividades humanas generan impactos (energía, transporte, etc.). En el proceso de desarrollo económico se mejoran las eficiencias en los sistemas alimentarios, pero también se intensifica el uso de recursos naturales. La introducción de indicadores de sostenibilidad es necesario a medio y largo plazo. 2.- La lucha contra el clima es una batalla global. Por ello deben establecerse umbrales de exigencia en todo el mundo. Los sistemas alimentarios deben hacer un esfuerzo para reducir sus emisiones en el conjunto de la cadena y mejorar la sostenibilidad de sus procesos para contribuir a la mitigación del cambio climático. 3.- La actividad ganadera forma parte esencial de los sistemas alimentarios tanto en los países en desarrollo como en los desarrollados. El desarrollo económico conduce a una mayor demanda de productos de origen animal. La tarea común de la cadena ganadero-cárnica es satisfacer esa demanda de manera eficiente y sostenible, para conseguir que los alimentos permitan el pleno desarrollo y promuevan la salud de todas las personas en todo el mundo. 4.- La actividad ganadero-cárnica es necesaria para el conjunto de la sociedad que demanda productos de origen animal. La carne, como producto fresco, no sufre prácticamente procesado. La ganadería utiliza recursos no aprovechados por el hombre y contribuye a la Economía Circular reutilizando subproductos, convirtiéndolos en proteína de alto valor biológico. 5.- La Unión Europea ha establecido exigencias medioambientales. Pero estas exigencias deben acompañarse con medidas de apoyo y ayudas financieras a la implantación de nuevas tecnologías que permitan conseguir los objetivos propuestos. 6.- Las nuevas tecnologías permiten reducir significativamente las emisiones de GEI en la producción ganadera. La eficiencia en el uso de las materias primas, la reducción de la huella hídrica, y la utilización de los subproductos que se generan en las explotaciones, como enmienda orgánica para la fertilización de suelos, junto con el empleo de energías renovables, son herramientas esenciales. El desarrollo de nuevas tecnologías, en el marco de la agricultura y la ganadería de precisión, permitirá seguir avanzando en ese objetivo. Este progreso tecnológico, unido a la concienciación del sector agroalimentario en su conjunto, garantiza el objetivo de alcanzar un impacto climático neutro antes de 2050, en consonancia con lo establecido en el Pacto Verde Europeo. 7.- La incorporación de nuevas tecnologías está facilitando la inclusión de la mujer en las explotaciones ganaderas. Además, los ganaderos y profesionales del sector agroalimentario de España son cada vez más especialistas en su trabajo y están comprometidos e involucrados en la lucha contra el Cambio Climático. 8.- La “Sostenibilidad de los Sistemas Agroalimentarios” debe analizarse y valorarse bajo un Enfoque Integral (medioambiental, social y económico). Se pusieron ejemplos de la importancia de la actividad ganadera en el mantenimiento de la población, en el desarrollo de la actividad económica en las vías rurales, la preservación de los ecosistemas y el mantenimiento de la biodiversidad. 9.- Es necesario comunicar al consumidor la forma y las condiciones de producción para que el consumidor sepa el esfuerzo que está haciendo el sector en sostenibilidad y en bienestar animal. Para lograrlo, es necesario una educación global de los consumidores en las actividades que lleva a cabo el sector en desperdicio alimentario. 10.- El Sistema Alimentario Ganadero-Cárnico cumple una importante función como protector y conservador del medio rural. Es una actividad indispensable para la sostenibilidad del medio rural y que, por tanto, debe ser protegida para garantizar la conservación de los pueblos, territorios, paisajes y ecosistemas; única forma real de mantener un sistema alimentario sostenible, inclusivo, equilibrado y resiliente.2362402432442492. BIENESTAR ANIMAL 1.- Europa es cabeza tractora de bienestar animal a nivel mundial. Esta diferenciación positiva que tenemos tanto en bienestar animal como por ejemplo en seguridad sanitaria es un ejemplo para el resto del mundo. 2.- Es indispensable el apoyo técnico y científico en la evolución, desarrollo e implantación del bienestar animal en todas las fases de la vida del animal para conseguir un óptimo estado físico y mental del animal en relación con las condiciones de vida (tal como dice la definición de la OIE). 3.- La figura del veterinario es clave, tanto desde el punto de vista de transmisor del conocimiento generado por los científicos, como para promover, convencer, ayudar y trabajar con el ganadero para implementar el bienestar animal. 4.- Los sellos de bienestar animal son una gran herramienta para mostrar al consumidor los avances en materias de bienestar animal y el trato de los animales. Los referenciales de bienestar animal deben ser potenciados para conseguir una total implementación en el sector, no solo a nivel de grandes ganaderos, sino también en medianos y pequeños productores. Los estándares o sellos de calidad de bienestar animal tienen que ser armonizados y homogéneos, como mínimo entre los diferentes Estados miembros de la UE; que es el modelo de producción más exigente del mundo. 5.- Hay una presión creciente por parte del consumidor que se materializa a lo largo de la cadena y es necesario dar respuesta al mismo. La respuesta tiene que estar basada en la ciencia, conocimiento científico del animal: comportamiento fisiológico y estado mental y, además, la respuesta debe igualmente estar conducida con mostrar y enseñar lo que es el bienestar real a nivel de granja. 6.- Hay que integrar dentro de la sostenibilidad de los sistemas alimentarios globales, el concepto de bienestar animal y definir unos estándares mínimos armonizados.2362382392402412422432442482493. NUTRICIÓN Y DIETAS SOSTENIBLES 1.- Los sistemas alimentarios mundiales son instrumentos de lucha contra el hambre y la desnutrición severa en el mundo, y por ello se considera que carecería de sentido o justificación sustituir total o parcialmente sistemas alimentarios, como el ganadero-cárnico, de amplísima implantación mundial y máxima y contrastada capacidad como suministrador de alimentos abundantes de alto potencial nutricional y seguros. 2.- En cuanto al punto de vista nutricional, los alimentos de origen animal son una fuente muy rica, única en algunos casos, en varios micronutrientes (esenciales) y compuestos bioactivos y su restricción puede derivar en problemas de salud sin una suplementación pautada y constante. No se encuentra sentido al hecho de tratar de sustituir, total o parcialmente, las proteínas de origen animal por proteínas alternativas como son las sintéticas artificiales que se obtienen en laboratorio, cuyo potencial alimentario o nutricional real se desconoce, y cuya capacidad de contribuir a resolver el grave problema de hambre y desnutrición en el mundo es tan desconocida como improbable. 3.- La carne y los derivados cárnicos caben en una alimentación equilibrada junto a otros alimentos, y no puede prescindirse de ellos por sus propiedades nutricionales, partiendo de un consumo responsable., Somos omnívoros, y se ha recordado la importancia de la carne en el desarrollo infantil y en la calidad de la alimentación 4.- Debemos poner en valor la Dieta mediterránea como garantía de alimentación y nutrición equilibrada, basada en la combinación y consumo racional de alimentos vegetales, animales, naturales y de proximidad. 5.- La opinión de la ciencia tiene que valer. Existen numerosas evidencias científicas que avalan la necesidad de los nutrientes de la carne para una alimentación adecuada y un correcto desarrollo y estado de salud. 6.- Preocupación por los mensajes sin base científica, y las fake news, que distorsionan las dietas y desincentivan el consumo de carne. Y frente a esto se necesita, muy importante, educación y formación. Y también una adecuada información y menos noticias falsas. 7.- Resulta imprescindible conectar con el público especialmente joven para transmitir con veracidad y de forma transparente información de la cadena ganadero-cárnica y que en consecuencia puedan tomar decisiones, con suficiente conocimiento. 8.- El desperdicio alimentario supone un grave problema para el desarrollo de los Sistemas Alimentarios. Por ello, sigue siendo necesaria una educación global del consumidor en este sentido. 9.- Se destaca la adaptación y resiliencia del sector agroalimentario y ganadero a lo largo de toda la cadena durante los difíciles momentos de la pandemia del covid-19, poniendo énfasis en el mantenimiento de la cadena de suministro. 10.- Para cumplir los objetivos ODS de la ONU, los Sistema Alimentarios deberán ser capaces de aportar, en cantidades suficientes para abastecer a toda la población mundial, alimentos SOSTENIBLES, SALUDABLES, ASEQUIBLES Y RESILIENTES; y deben garantizar y certificar un óptimo “Bienestar Animal”.2362382402412422432442494. IMPACTO ECONÓMICO Y SOCIAL DE LA ACTIVIDAD GANADERA 1- El Sector Agroalimentario en general constituye uno de los principales soportes y motores de la generación de empleo y riqueza en el mundo. 2.- El Sistema Alimentario Ganadero-Cárnico, es uno de los más importantes y potentes motores de generación de riqueza y empleo en la mayoría de los países. Genera mundialmente muchos cientos de millones de empleos, con creciente incorporación de jóvenes y empleo femenino. 3.- Según recientes informes de la FAO, ante el fuerte incremento de la población mundial y la creciente concentración de la riqueza, se ha intensificado la desigualdad y la pobreza en el mundo, ligado a las dificultades de generación de empleo en numerosos países; lo cual contradice los “Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible” 4.- El Sistema Alimentario Ganadero-Cárnico tiene una fuerte implantación en las zonas rurales. La lucha contra la despoblación no sería posible sin la actividad agrícola y ganadera. 5.- El sector porcino es un motor económico de la España despoblada. Más del 43% de sus granjas y del 40% de su empleo se sitúan en municipios de menos de 5.000 habitantes, lo que favorece la permanencia de jóvenes y familias en núcleos rurales, evitando la despoblación. 6.- Ninguna sociedad es sostenible si se abandonan sus tierras o sus pueblos, si no se genera empleo en las zonas rurales si no se gestiona el territorio de forma adecuada, y sin soberanía alimentaria. Es decir, que sin agricultores y ganaderos no hay modelo sostenible. 7. España aún tiene gran potencial de crecimiento en ganadería, y debe hacerlo de forma sostenible. 8.- El Sistema Alimentario Ganadero-Cárnico induce y genera inversiones y oportunidades de empleo en otros sectores relacionados: transporte, comercio, suministro de piensos, e insumos, servicios veterinarios, construcción, energía y telecomunicaciones, tecnología e investigación, comunicación, gestión de las administraciones, etc. 9.- El beneficio medioambiental, social y económico de la actividad cárnico-ganadera es vital para las zonas rurales. Permite gestionar una amplia cantidad de territorio sin coste alguno para los ciudadanos; vertebra el territorio al fijar población en pequeños núcleos; conserva patrimonios naturales y culturales, ofrece futuro a cientos de miles de familias en pequeños núcleos rurales, y contribuye a la lucha contra incendios, a la diversidad genética y genera riqueza que permite sufragar infraestructuras básicas en las zonas rurales. También contribuye a la absorción de CO2, al incremento de la biodiversidad, a la economía circular y a la reutilización de residuos y subproductos. 10.Hay que trabajar para reducir la distancia entre mundo rural y urbano. Asistimos a un cambio generacional importante y muchos sectores de la población no conocen bien cómo se trabaja en el sector agrario y ganadero, lo que puede generar rechazo a la actividad ganadera. Es imprescindible comunicar de forma efectiva la labor del sector ganadero cárnico y su aportación a la sociedad. 11. Todas las actividades humanas, tienen impactos positivos y negativos. En la actividad ganadera, además de los evidentes impactos positivos, se debe seguir trabajando para minimizar los negativos (purines-olores, emisiones GEI, etc). Ya se han hecho enormes avances en ello. Las próximas normativas (RD Ordenación del territorio, estrategia de la Granja a la Mesa) fijarán los estándares. El sector porcino está preparado para afrontar esos retos, y cumplir con impacto climático neutro en 2050.2362382402422432445. COMUNICACIÓN 1.- El sector ganadero-cárnico se enfrenta a continuas crisis de reputación. Intensificar la comunicación proactiva y en positivo es un reto que el sector debe afrontar de forma prioritaria. El sector debe transmitir a la sociedad la labor que realiza en materias como cuidado del medio ambiente, bienestar animal o innovación, entre otros. 2.- Es imprescindible que el ciudadano tenga un suficiente conocimiento de las aportaciones reales de los Sistemas Alimentarios y los verdaderos atributos y valores de los alimentos más allá de mitos, propagandas interesadas o falsos mensajes; por ello se debe potenciar la información y comunicación veraz, completa y actualizada puesta a disposición de los consumidores y de la sociedad en general. 3.- Por su propia naturaleza, el sector porcino -el agroganadero en general- ejerce principalmente su actividad en el ámbito rural, y eso ha supuesto una barrera geográfica en su relación con los líderes de opinión nacionales y con los medios de comunicación, que se concentran en grandes núcleos de población. Esa falta de comunicación hacia la sociedad urbana ha dado lugar a un desconocimiento de la actividad ganadera y de las ventajas del consumo de proteínas animales y abonado el terreno a ‘relatos’ de colectivos contrarios al consumo de carne que critican injustificadamente y con infundada dureza tanto la actividad como al producto. 4.- La comunicación tiene sus propias reglas y el sector ganadero-cárnico debe conocerlas a fondo Se debe conocer y escuchar a los ciudadanos, elaborar mensajes atractivos para difundir sus valores positivos, adaptarse a los formatos y momentos más adecuados para cada uno de sus públicos y medir el impacto de sus acciones comunicativas para introducir mejoras. 5.- Las nuevas tecnologías de la información abren inmensas oportunidades para que el sector ganadero-cárnico difunda su labor real y todo lo que aporta a la sociedad; pero a la vez estos nuevos canales facilitan la rápida propagación de fake news, falsos mitos o desinformación interesada contra lo que hay que luchar utilizando adecuadas herramientas de información y comunicación que permitan generar un correcto y completo conocimiento del sector ganadero-cárnico y de sus productos. 6.- Es muy importante para el propio sector poder ofrecer información veraz y contrastada sobre todo aquello que afecte a la cadena ganadero-cárnica y que contribuya a dar a conocer su realidad a la sociedad y establecer un diálogo constante con los ciudadanos. 7.- Es importante dar visibilidad y reconocimiento a los agricultores ganaderos y operadores industrializadores y comercializadores, puesto que son los principales soportes y gestores de la sostenibilidad de los sistemas agroalimentarios. 8.- Hay que exigir que al sector agroalimentario y a las zonas rurales se les mida públicamente con la misma exigencia que a otros sectores ligados a la sociedad urbanita. Gestionando la mayor parte del territorio y procurando alimentos se critican mucho más las emisiones o el uso del agua de una granja o una explotación agrícola que las de las obras de infraestructuras de grandes ciudades o el tráfico aéreo relacionado con el turismo o los negocios. 9.- En definitiva, es imprescindible contar con potentes mecanismos de INFORMACIÓN Y COMUNICACIÓN DEL SISTEMA ALIMENTARIO GANADERO-CÁRNICO que garanticen un óptimo conocimiento y valoración por la sociedad de los atributos y aportaciones de dicho sistema, en cuanto a nutrición, salud, impacto socioeconómico, contribución al medio rural y sostenibilidad medioambiental.237239249SIN DIVERGENCIAS IMPORTANTES A DESTACAR Mencionar que en una de las salas, al hablar de etiquetado, varios de los presentes criticaron fuertemente el sistema NutriScore, como esquema de etiquetado nutricional frontal, pero también hubo quien lo defendió, diciendo que su misión es ayudar a los consumidores para que puedan comparar alimentos, siempre, de una misma categoría. No sirve para comparar alimentos distintos (se citó la Coca-cola y aceite, por ejemplo, diciendo que el sistema NutriScore no sirve para compararlos entre sí).

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/FAO-2020-ganaderia-como-mitigacion-del-cambio-climatico.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Gerber-et-al-2013-FAO-livestock-mitigation-options.pdfhttps://interporc.com/https://www.bienestaranimalcertificado.com/https://transparentesnoinvisibles.es/https://letstalkabouteupork.com/https://meatthefacts.eu/https://realidadganadera.es/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2211912416300013https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0308521X21000160

2021-05-21 13:32:22204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/11710/33

211231620712054537222114191252113314125174

Todos os participantes receberam um material explicando a Cúpula, o papel dos Diálogos Independentes, o tema proposto para este Diálogo, as Actions Tracks, a conexão do tema com a Action Track #1 e os princípios de envolvimento.A seleção dos participantes foi baseada na diversidade e na complementaridade, envolvendo comunidades tradicionais, academia, organismos multilaterais, governo, movimentos sociais e sociedade civil, todos com espaço equivalente de fala e escuta respeitosa, além das regras do Chatham House asseguradas. Os tópicos de discussão foram propostos com uma abordagem transversal dos desafios do tema, reconhecendo sua complexidade e urgência.Promover a divulgação dos princípios e criar um ambiente de debate com múltiplas partes interessadas e diferentes perspectivas, e com tópicos que apresentem a complexidade do tema proposto.

NoEncontre anexos: Relatório completo de Feedback deste diálogo, salvo em PDF; Relatório do Online COVID Food Systems Dialogue - Brazil (em inglês) realizado em 24 de Junho de 2020. Sobre a metodologia: Foi seguida a metodologia do Manual de Referências, com a participação de um grupo relativamente pequeno de convidados, a fim de garantir maior aproveitamento do tempo de debates nos grupos do Zoom, porém sem ter que estender demais o tempo do evento, considerando que a maioria das pessoas atualmente tem resistência a eventos com muito tempo de exposição de tela. Os participantes receberam previamente uma apresentação explicando a Cúpula, o papel dos Diálogos Independentes, o tema do Diálogo ao qual foram convidados, e sua conexão com a Action Track #1. Foram escolhidos facilitadores que fossem mais neutros aos debates, porém com conhecimento suficiente da temática para poder conduzir e apreender as diversas falas. Todos os/as facilitadores/as fizeram o treinamento com a 4SD indicado no Manual de Referência, e foram auxiliados por um tomador de nota por grupo, que manteve-se em silêncio. O Diálogo teve a duração de aproximadamente 2 horas e meia. Foram feitas breves falas iniciais de três Champions brasileiros da rede de Champions da Cúpula de Sistemas Alimentares, incluindo o Curador, que apresentou a situação atual do desafio brasileiro em acesso à alimentação saudável, com apresentação de slides. Uma vez encaminhados aos grupos de forma previamente selecionada pela organização do evento (mas não previamente comunicada a cada participante), todos tiveram semelhantes tempos de fala. O Curador transitou pelos grupos, sem interferir nos debates - o que foi previamente comunicado a todos os participantes. O resumo posteriormente apresentado em plenária pelo respectivo facilitador/a do grupo foi feito com o consentimento dos debatedores e em atendimento às regras de chatam house. Após a sessão de feedback, o Curador fez uma fala conclusiva, e o apoiador do Diálogo também fez uma fala de encerramento. O chat do Zoom esteve disponível e aberto a todas e todos no tempo integral do Diálogo. Foi enviado posteriormente um questionário de avaliação do evento, o qual até agora só teve respostas positivas e nenhum comentário crítico. Observação: Gostaríamos que Feedback em PDF fosse publicado em português, mas esta opção não aparece no menu.

234238243246247248249O foco do Diálogo foi explorar principalmente entre atores da sociedade civil brasileira, como garantir acesso universal à alimentação saudável e frear o aumento da insegurança alimentar e da obesidade, partindo do princípio que o acesso à alimentação saudável é um direito de todos. As temáticas dos grupos envolvem aspectos ou desafios da garantia desse acesso à alimentação saudável no cenário brasileiro atual, como as questões relacionadas ao preço da alimentação saudável versus garantia de remuneração justa aos produtores (acesso financeiro); a importância do fortalecimento dos territórios para a o acesso (físico) à alimentação saudável; a educação e o acesso à informação acerca da alimentação saudável; as ações emergenciais de combate à insegurança alimentar; os mecanismos estruturais de combate à insegurança alimentar; a forma como deve ser dar a governança das políticas e processos de combate à insegurança alimentar, destacando os atores e agentes essenciais à boa governança; e a significação de alimentação segura (food safety) num ambiente de valorização da produção familiar e artesanal de alimentos. O foco principal do Diálogo, portanto, estava relacionado à Action Track #1, e isso foi identificado e exposto aos participantes previamente ao encontro.235238243244245246247249251Praticamente todos os grupos destacaram o momento trágico vivido pelo Brasil, com aumento significativo da insegurança alimentar e da pobreza, e a constante redução das políticas e estruturas nacionais (federais) de combate à insegurança alimentar pelo governo federal atual, seja por sensíveis reduções orçamentárias de programas-chave no combate à fome, seja por alterações legislativas que ferem ou enfraquecem direta ou indiretamente o direito humano à alimentação - direito reconhecido no Brasil por sua Constituição Federal - seja por descaracterização das estruturas de governança participativa e inclusiva no monitoramento dessas políticas públicas, tudo isso com resultados trágicos para os mecanismos estruturais de um Estado garantidor de direitos, e também para a situação socioeconômica da população brasileira. Retrocesso nas políticas de segurança alimentar e nutricional foi o ponto mais destacado. Portanto, o principal resultado foi o reconhecimento da necessidade de retomada dessas políticas públicas, no nível federal, de apoio à produção familiar, de garantia da alimentação saudável, e de apoio às vulnerabilidades; mas também: 1- Necessidade de articulação em rede e de ação conjunta e coordenada entre diversos atores da sociedade civil, gestores e pesquisadores, para desenvolvimento de ações, monitoramento e acompanhamento de resultados, e geração de dados e informações de forma transparente. Maior aproximação entre grupos de produtores e grupos de consumidores, e maior articulação entre os diversos movimentos sociais que atuam nas temáticas referentes à alimentação. 2- Garantia de condições básicas socioeconômicas: necessidade de garantir renda mínima (políticas de renda mínima ou transferência de renda) e infraestrutura básica para a população (por exemplo, acesso à água e gás de cozinha). 3- Advocacy pela reinstalação do conselho nacional de segurança alimentar e nutricional - que era um fórum de interlocução entre governo e sociedade civil no plano nacional e de controle das políticas públicas federais em temas de segurança alimentar e nutricional; um conselho no âmbito da administração federal mas com presidência e maioria de membros da sociedade civil. 4- Regulação da propaganda, do acesso e das embalagens (rotulagem) dos ultraprocessados para desincentivar o acesso a esses alimentos. 5- Ampliação dos espaços de participação popular e de articulação comunitária, principalmente no âmbito local/municipal, para que as diversas vozes dos sistemas alimentares possam ser ouvidas, principalmente dos agricultores, pescadores e extrativistas familiares e das comunidades tradicionais e indígenas - verdadeiros produtores do alimento saudável. 6- Valorização de políticas locais que busquem garantir o acesso universal ao alimento saudável, como os exemplos das cozinhas comunitárias e das escolas de gastronomia social (total ou parcialmente custeadas pelos governos locais), e da ampliação de feiras livres / mercados de rua com alimentos saudáveis. Necessidade de maior investimento em estruturas de logística e transporte de alimentos perecíveis (o que apoia a redução de custo). 7- Necessidade de informação e geração de dados com transparência e combate a fake news. Necessidade de indicadores regulares sobre estado nutricional da população, bem como de dados claros e confiáveis sobre as cadeias de produção e consumo de alimentação saudável. 8- Ações de capacitação, formação e sensibilização dos diversos atores chave e profissionais que atuam nos sistemas alimentares, mas também junto aos gestores e a população em geral, em ações que apontem para entendimento integrado e holístico do alimento e das culturas alimentares. 9- Ampliação e desenvolvimento de programas e projetos de educação alimentar com inserção das culturas alimentares indígenas e tradicionais e valorização de dietas diversificadas, que atentem para a sociobiodiversidade brasileira. 10- Garantia aos produtores familiares de acesso à terra e acesso à agua, por ações das três esferas de governos (federal, estadual e municipal), representando reforma agrária no campo e fomento à agricultura urbana nas cidades. 11- Necessidade de ampliação dos programas e ações de assistência técnica agroecológica, e de inclusão digital / acesso à internet pelos produtores, pescadores e extrativistas familiares e comunidades tradicionais. 12- Construção e disseminação de estratégias de comunicação acerca da alimentação saudável e sistemas alimentares sustentáveis, valorizando a narrativa da comida de verdade e da soberania alimentar. Campanhas e estratégias de comunicação também voltadas ao conhecimento geral sobre o direito à alimentação, sobre alimentos saudáveis e agroecológicos, e sobre o papel de produtore/as, pescadore/as, extrativistas familiares e comunidades tradicionais (indígenas, quilombolas, caiçaras…) na segurança alimentar brasileira - destacando a relevância da mulher. 13- Necessidade do conceito de alimento seguro (food safety) incluir, na comunicação e na regulação, o não uso de agrotóxicos na produção e a ausência tanto de violência pela disputa de terra da cadeia produtiva, quanto de desmatamento.236238243245246247249Alimento bom, a preço justo e acessível: comida saudável acessível ao bolso de todos/as, sem onerar o produtor. Ações urgentes e necessárias nos próximos 3 anos: Plano emergencial COVID 19 - Vacinação universal e comida no prato. O enfraquecimento de políticas públicas agravou a insegurança alimentar. A sociedade civil está dando suas respostas frente às urgências (doações de alimentos, cozinhas comunitárias) e o Estado está falhando com as ações emergenciais. Planos a médio e longo prazos - Recuperar o papel do Governo Federal no acesso à alimentação, com as políticas públicas e processos educacionais no centro do debate, viabilizando acesso aos recursos naturais (terra e água), reforma agrária, apoio técnico para as tecnologias sociais voltadas à agricultura de base ecológica, políticas voltadas para agroecologia, preço mínimo para agricultura familiar, estruturação do transporte e logística, programa de aquisição pública de alimentos (para doação e para formação de estoques), entre outras. Fomentar a produção de alimentos saudáveis e sustentáveis pelo fortalecimento da agricultura familiar. Políticas públicas com participação social - Promover as ações da sociedade civil e potencializar o debate urgente e relevante da força social, sustentadas por políticas públicas, para enfrentar as desigualdades sociais, considerando a saúde humana e promovendo o acesso à alimentação. Sociedade civil deve participar na implementação de políticas públicas municipais e nacionais. Narrativas - Apresentar narrativa que dê destaque à potência da agricultura familiar e da agroecologia frente à produção de commodities. No Brasil prevalece a força hegemônica do agronegócio da monocultura que se coloca como a salvação para a segurança alimentar, mas encerra uma contradição: o país como grande produtor de alimentos e mais da metade da população com algum grau de insegurança alimentar. Unidade na representação política - A agricultura familiar precisa aproximar os consumidores dos produtores, o elo entre essas organizações precisa se fortalecer. Os governos federal, estadual e municipal devem promover esse encurtamento da cadeia produtiva. Quem deverá implementar? Ações emergenciais na pandemia da fome - Ações populares em torno da comida, com organização suficiente para formar sistemas cooperados. A longo prazo - mudanças estruturais, políticas públicas e apoio governamental. As representações da agricultura familiar podem propor sistemas alimentares sustentáveis e promover maior diálogo com o consumidor. Na circunstância da política vigente, a sociedade civil deve mobilizar-se para a recriação do Conselho Nacional de Segurança Alimentar e Nutricional, visando a manutenção do conjunto de políticas públicas para fortalecimento da agricultura familiar, que estão sendo sistematicamente desmontadas; e os governos devem sustentar ações para redução das desigualdades, manutenção da saúde humana e enfrentamento da fome. Narrativas e Políticas públicas com participação social - As representações da agricultura familiar devem atuar junto às prefeituras, priorizando os sistemas locais, repensando os mecanismos de distribuição e consumo e ampliando o diálogo com os consumidores. E construir narrativa que dê destaque à viabilidade da agricultura de base ecológica para fazer frente ao discurso hegemônico do agronegócio de commodities, promovido na grande mídia e pela representação dos grandes produtores. Como avaliar o progresso? Necessidade de indicadores regulares e frequentes acerca dos impactos socioeconômicos da pandemia para acompanhamento das políticas públicas. Observatórios territoriais, construídos com a participação da sociedade civil, em escalas municipal, estadual e nacional. A alimentação é um direito e a história do próprio território e dos seus sistemas alimentares precisa ser respeitada. Desafios que podem ser antecipados Manutenção do conjunto de ações políticas existentes para o fortalecimento da agricultura familiar e dos equipamentos públicos de segurança alimentar e nutricional, que estão sendo sistematicamente desmontados. Existe uma crítica à Cúpula sobre o risco da captura privada da agenda e de cooptação pelas grandes corporações. Espera-se que a Cúpula reconheça a declaração da década da agricultura familiar.236238243245246247249Alimentação saudável por toda parte: territórios fortalecidos para que todos/as tenham acesso à alimentação saudável Ações urgentes e necessárias nos próximos 3 anos: Distribuição/ acesso: Garantir que o comércio varejista - privilegiado no abastecimento da população com a diminuição de feiras de alimentos in natura - promova alimentação saudável. Ao mesmo tempo, que se estimulem as feiras locais e redes solidárias para garantir abastecimento de alimentos saudáveis em comunidades isoladas e tradicionais, para além do que elas mesmas produzem. O acesso depende da oferta mas também do poder de compra, assim, é também importante demandar garantia da renda mínima para todos. Marketing/ propaganda: Necessidade de regulação da propaganda sobre alimentos ultraprocessados, principalmente em escolas e disseminar em escala o guia alimentar brasileiro. Destaque do papel do produtor familiar: Necessidade de maior reconhecimento da importância do agricultor (que deverá estar mais presente na formulação de políticas e na revisão do plano diretor de sua cidade), e da agricultura urbana enquanto prática que garante autonomia na escolha de alimentos das comunidades, fomentando a prática com estratégias de compra pública, acesso a matéria prima e políticas de fomento. O incentivo ao processamento artesanal de alimento comunitário se apresenta como uma grande oportunidade de diversificação e geração de renda. Aproximação produtor/ consumidor: Aproximar quem produz e quem consome, através de um processo de educação e construção de consciência alimentar, de desenvolvimento de turismo de base comunitária (principalmente junto a comunidades tradicionais) Quem deverá implementar? Necessidade de espaços de liderança comunitária e articulação de movimentos locais em diversos territórios, que permitam a participação dos produtores de alimentos / pescadores artesanais / comunidades tradicionais nas tomadas de decisão. O poder público, tanto a nível federal como estadual e local, tem papel fundamental na defesa e proteção de políticas de segurança alimentar e nutricional, na construção de estruturas de governança eficazes - como a formação de frentes parlamentares de segurança alimentar e nutricional -, e na regulação de propaganda de alimentos ultraprocessados. Educadores e profissionais de saúde podem apoiar a construção de uma cultura de alimentação saudável. Como avaliar o progresso? Para avaliar o progresso é fundamental: governança, dados e transparência, alinhamento intersetorial. A retomada de estruturas de governança com participação popular, que execute papel fiscalizador e orientador na construção de políticas nos 3 níveis de governo - Conselhos de Segurança Alimentar e Nutricional, Conselhos de Saúde, Conselhos de Agricultura familiar. Porém, para monitorar e fiscalizar as ações e para uma boa gestão, é fundamental (i) a existência de dados e informações coletadas de forma transparente e acessíveis a toda a população, indicando determinantes socioeconômicos da segurança alimentar e nutricional, e (ii) sistemas de informação que embasem as políticas sociais. Essas informações e dados deverão ser compartilhados e deverá existir uma articulação em rede, entre diversos atores chave, com apoio de universidades, para promover encontros, intercâmbio e trocas - como um mapa de redes ativas e reunião do trabalho de diferentes observatórios sociais locais e nacionais. Desafios que podem ser antecipados Para além dos desafios intensificados pela pandemia, antecipam-se desafios de acesso à informação e infraestrutura técnica e digital dos agricultores. No momento, garantir liberdade de expressão e estruturas democráticas de poder é desafio no contexto brasileiro. É importante que sejam desenhadas novas estratégias de fortalecimento dos movimentos, para que possam ser reivindicadas políticas públicas que defendam a soberania alimentar da população, que descriminalizam e protejam práticas de produção de alimentos de comunidades tradicionais, e que assegurem a permanência destes em seus territórios, onde têm acesso a alimentos saudáveis e possibilidades de produção.236238243246247249251Conhecendo a comida saudável... e a não saudável: consumidores informados e educação nutricional garantida. Ações urgentes e necessárias nos próximos 3 anos: Sensibilização: O Programa Nacional de Alimentação Escolar é uma importante estratégia de promoção da alimentação saudável, pela oferta do alimento, ou pelas atividades de Educação Alimentar e Nutricional vinculadas ao programa que promovem mudança de hábitos alimentares. É preciso sensibilizar gestores sobre a importância da alimentação escolar, orientar sobre higienização de alimentos, hábitos alimentares, importância do respeito às culturas alimentares tradicionais, e compra de alimentos dos agricultores/pescadores/extrativistas familiares. A sensibilização deverá se estender a toda a população, via: programas de educação alimentar - tanto sobre alimentação saudável como sobre a sua territorialidade, informando sobre o alimento de forma transparente e simples de entender; campanhas promovidas por órgãos de defesa do consumidor; ações de combate a fake news sobre o que é (ou não é) alimentação saudável. Formação e capacitação: Renovar a formação em gastronomia, trazendo seu papel social e perspectiva holística da atividade, bem como resgatar a importância do cozinheiro cotidiano e não só dos chefs famosos. É urgente no cenário atual a formação de profissionais do sistema alimentar para serem capazes de atuar no combate à fome, através de conteúdos que orientem sobre a valorização do alimento e seus impactos na saúde das pessoas e do planeta. O trabalho conjunto entre professores e monitores, para capacitação sobre alimentação e nutrição entre profissionais de escolas também é importante. Distribuição de alimentos: Feiras solidárias e agroecológicas para facilitar o acesso da população ao alimento saudável, promover envolvimento comunitário e a ressignificação do alimento produzido. É importante garantir condições para o desenvolvimento de ações conjuntas entre universidades e banco de alimentos, para formar cestas com alimentos frescos e menos processados. Quem deverá implementar? Vários setores da sociedade, governos locais, gestores, escolas, academia, sociedade civil, e diferentes profissionais: a sociedade civil tem força para demandar a manutenção de programas já existentes, assim como para movimentar outras iniciativas que se façam necessárias para garantir o acesso e a informação sobre alimentação saudável; o poder público pode desenvolver políticas que orientem sobre o que é alimento saudável e influenciar para além dos muros da escola; a mulher tem um papel social central na ressignificação do alimento; profissionais, como nutricionistas, devem ampliar seu papel e órgãos como os conselhos de política alimentar são quem deve representar a sociedade nas discussões. Como avaliar o progresso? Para avaliar o progresso é fundamental que os processos de acompanhamento dos programas educacionais existentes nas escolas sejam cumpridos. O controle social dentro das comunidades também é uma boa estratégia de monitoramento. Desafios que podem ser antecipados • capacitação e sensibilização: os gestores nem sempre estão sensibilizados, nem os profissionais capacitados, sobre a dimensão territorial do alimento e sua visão holítistica. A equipe nutricional poderá não ser conhecedora da cultura alimentar das comunidades locais, evitando que a educação alimentar seja considerada importante nas escolas ou devidamente implementada, e que o cardápio escolar possa atender os diferentes grupos. • infraestrutura: inexistência de infraestrutura mínima para produção de refeições baseadas em alimentos in natura (por exemplo, a ausência do gás em muitas residências) prejudica a alimentação saudável. • aplicação do programa: dificuldade de aplicação da legislação vigente, interrupção da oferta da alimentação escolar e das atividades educativas durante a pandemia. É também um desafio contornar exigências legais de presença de nutricionista nas escolas para permitir, por exemplo, que alimentos das hortas escolares possam ser consumidos nas escolas. ° informação: desafio de combater notícias falsas sobre alimentação saudável e trazer informações e dados diversos que apontem para a participação de todos dentro do sistema alimentar.236238243245246247249251Ações emergenciais de combate à fome: reações da sociedade civil geram aprendizado coletivo. Ações urgentes e necessárias nos próximos 3 anos: A alimentação surge como tema central na pandemia, com potencial de impactar projetos locais em todo o território. É urgente assegurar autonomia no acesso a alimentos, seja pela garantia de renda mínima, seja incentivo à produção local de alimentos. Gênero: priorizar ações de Segurança alimentar com recorte de gênero - reconhecer o papel central das mulheres na gestão alimentar do lar e assegurar sua segurança alimentar; promover educação e formação para geração de renda para garantir autonomia e acesso à alimentação saudável. Alimentação escolar: Garantir acesso à alimentação saudável gratuita e universal nas escolas. Emergencial vs estruturante: realizar mutirão contra a fome mas entendendo que a urgência da fome não é suficientemente atendida pela sociedade civil. Fundamental reivindicar por políticas públicas de garantia de renda mínima permanente, controle de preços, fortalecimento de programas existentes, estruturas de governança participativa e acesso a equipamentos como cozinhas comunitárias. Produção de alimentos: Apoiar e incentivar a produção de alimentos dentro das comunidades urbanas e junto aos povos tradicionais para assegurar o acesso à alimentação saudável em diversos territórios, através de instalação de hortas comunitárias na periferia, com manejo orgânico, e estimulado pelas compras populares, e garantir a continuidade da produção existente, com crédito para os pequenos produtores e fluxo de comunicação entre campo e cidade. Doação de insumos, ferramentas e equipamentos de trabalho para os produtores de alimentos. Quem deverá implementar? O governo é fundamental na construção de políticas públicas, considerando as diferenças de cada região e sua cultura, por exemplo em programas de educação alimentar. A sociedade civil pode também agir, promovendo maior articulação entre trabalhadores do campo e cidade fortalecendo o elo entre o campo e a cidade, monitorando e dando subsídio para as ações chegarem nas pessoas mais vulneráveis e pressionando o estado na garantia de direitos (advocacy). Pesquisadores são fundamentais para criar informação com base em pesquisas que apoiem na formulação de políticas. Como avaliar o progresso? Existem programas e métodos de mensuração bem sucedidos que deverão ser readequados e assegurados. Deverão ser implementadas pesquisas frequentes que monitorem indicadores de progresso do combate à fome e a sociedade civil poderá monitorar essas ações, para isso deverão se fortalecer os espaços de sua participação, como os Conselhos de Segurança Alimentar e Nutricional. O Ministério Público federal e estaduais podem ser parceiros e promover diálogos para promover e mediar a sensibilização de gestores no sentido de que o alimento de programas públicos respeite a cultura local. A FUNAI (agência de apoio aos povos indígenas) poderia ser uma instância de apoio aos povos indígenas, a exemplo do que tem realizado o Ministério Público Federal do estado do Amazonas. Desafios que podem ser antecipados Falta de vontade política para executar; desafio da dimensão territorial do país para incluir a diversidade de toda a sociedade; dificuldade de diálogo entre sociedade civil, campo e cidade para a elaboração de políticas públicas que representem o resultado desse diálogo; desafio do acesso à terra para cultivo e autonomia, reconhecendo o conhecimento dos povos tradicionais na produção de alimentos. Ao nível urbano, existe o desafio de elaborar planos municipais que promovam diálogos transversais e com diversidade de atores participantes.236238243245246247249Ações governamentais de combate à insegurança alimentar: respostas emergenciais dadas em tempo, além das respostas estruturais fortalecidas. Ações urgentes e necessárias nos próximos 3 anos: O Brasil saiu do mapa da fome porque conseguiu conceber um programa intersetorial, que foi e está sendo desestruturado pelo governo federal desde 2016, resultando em grave insegurança alimentar, acelerada pela pandemia. É urgente retomar tanto os programas federais que foram extintos, quanto os orçamentos dos programas que permaneceram, e fortalecer estas políticas públicas: - Auxílio emergencial de renda enquanto a pandemia perdurar. - Recriação do Conselho de Segurança Alimentar e Nutricional nacional. - Programas de transferência de renda governamental: renda mínima perene, “bolsa família” e reajuste do salário mínimo para reativar a economia. - Programa de transferência de renda no modelo que está sendo proposto nos EUA pelo Presidente em exercício. - Compras Institucionais: Programa de Aquisição de Alimentos (compra pública de produtores/pescadores/ extrativistas familiares e comunidades tradicionais para doação a populações vulneráveis via banco de alimentos, ou formação de estoques públicos), Banco de Alimentos, Programa Nacional de Alimentação Escolar (compra pública de produtores/pescadores/ extrativistas familiares e comunidades tradicionais para a alimentação escolar). - Estratégia Fome Zero, Programa de Cisternas (segurança hídrica para territórios do semi-árido brasileiro), Água Para Todos e Luz Para Todos (programas de segurança hídrica e energética). - Incentivo à agricultura familiar: programas de crédito e financiamento como o Pronaf e o Plano Safra Agricultura Familiar, e incentivo às feiras livres. - Manutenção dos programas de educação e saúde. - Políticas de combate à insegurança alimentar, como o marco legal de Segurança Alimentar e Nutricional, devem ser cumpridas, colocadas no centro do debate e pensadas no longo prazo como políticas de Estado, e não apenas como políticas de um governo. Quem deverá implementar? A esfera federal tem papel fundamental, entretanto, nos últimos 5 anos, vem se omitindo, apesar do direito à alimentação estar previsto na Constituição. Com o desmonte das políticas estruturantes federais, estados e municípios precisam se organizar para implementar soluções de combate à insegurança alimentar ao nível local. A sociedade civil tem papel fundamental de cobrança do cumprimento das leis e de que sejam priorizados os projetos sócioambientais. Como avaliar o progresso? - O número de pessoas em situação de extrema pobreza, considerando que “a fome é fruto da extrema pobreza”. Programas de transferência de renda possuem efeito multiplicador no combate à insegurança alimentar, pois ao mesmo tempo que oferecem condições para que a extrema pobreza seja combatida, dão autonomia para que chefes de família decidam quais alimentos comprar. - Acompanhamento dos orçamentos federais, municipais e estaduais, tendo como princípio norteador os repasses às políticas focadas em Segurança Alimentar e Nutricional. Nesse contexto, pode-se pensar em compras institucionais, crédito e fomento para a agricultura familiar, diálogo campo-cidade, além de instrumentos para fomentar bancos de alimentos para regulação de preços e mecanismos de compras públicas mais eficientes. Vale lembrar que, em um passado não tão distante, o Brasil já foi referência mundial nessa questão. Desafios que podem ser antecipados - O maior desafio é o governo atual entender a gravidade da situação e verdadeiramente atender às necessidades do povo. Sem este entendimento será muito difícil retomar os programas estruturantes com seus orçamentos e até mesmo os programas emergenciais. - Re-instituição do Conselho nacional de segurança alimentar e a retomada do funcionamento do Sistema Nacional de Segurança Alimentar e Nutricional. - Conscientizar a população sobre a situação real que o Brasil se encontra, para que, dentro das estruturas democráticas, através da eleição de novas pessoas, seja tomado um rumo distinto do atual Governo Federal e do Congresso Nacional.236238245246247249251Governança das ações de garantia da alimentação saudável: certeza de processos democráticos para assegurar o direito de todos/as à alimentação. Ações urgentes e necessárias nos próximos 3 anos: Ações de comunicação: Divulgar a importância dos conselhos, fóruns e políticas públicas de alimentação e controle socioambiental; o atual desmonte que vêm sofrendo as políticas públicas e suas consequências frente à garantia do direito básico à alimentação, previsto na Constituição Federal. Incentivar o consumo de alimentos saudáveis. Criar narrativas e campanhas que esclareçam que o agronegócio não produz alimentos para as pessoas. A campanha do agronegócio de commodities (“Agro é Pop, Agro é Tudo”) se apropriou da agenda da alimentação para esconder interesse de grandes empresas e apropriação política de discurso. É importante utilizar todos os meios de comunicação, inclusive o rádio. Produção de alimentos: Estimular a produção de alimentos saudáveis através de um processo educativo com os produtores da agricultura familiar convencional. Fomentar a agricultura familiar e as políticas de produção e acesso aos alimentos sem agrotóxicos. Manter a mobilização do legislativo e dos Fóruns Estaduais de combate ao uso indiscriminado de agrotóxicos. Valorizar e viabilizar o extrativismo, considerando a importância das populações tradicionais neste processo, em especial, as mulheres quebradeiras de coco, marisqueiras, indígenas e seus saberes. Fortalecimento da Governança: Fortalecer os Conselhos Estaduais e Municipais de Segurança Alimentar e Nutricional que têm sobrevivido ao desmonte e ao desafio de continuar agindo junto ao Ministério Público, para fazer valer o seu papel e as ações acordadas. Assegurar instituições da sociedade civil como "espaços" de debate para reconstrução do mecanismo de controle social e todo sistema. Constituir parcerias para cobrar dos governantes políticas eficazes que restabeleçam as estruturas formais de governança e os aportes de recursos para garantia do direito à alimentação. As grandes centrais de abastecimento estaduais (CEASAs) devem se mobilizar para garantir alimentação às populações mais vulneráveis. Proteger o Programa Nacional de Alimentação Escolar dos ataques que vem sofrendo (por projetos de lei que visam excluir prioridades de compras feitas dos produtores familiares e comunidades tradicionais, bem como que visam violar diretrizes do Guia Alimentar Brasileiro). Defender e valorizar os grupos minoritários, mulheres, povo negro, quilombolas e comunidades. Quem deverá implementar? A sociedade civil, os movimentos sociais, os conselhos e toda a população, articulados com o Ministério Público e sobretudo apoiados pelas esferas dos governos Federal, Estadual e Municipal. Como avaliar o progresso? Restabelecimento do Conselho Nacional de Segurança Alimentar e Nutricional, principal mecanismo de controle social - extinto no primeiro dia do atual governo – e demais conselhos. População informada sobre seu direito básico à alimentação, garantido pela Constituição Federal, e sobre os impactos dos sistemas alimentares na sua saúde, na sociedade e no meio ambiente. O Ministério Público, as Assembleias Legislativas e Câmaras Municipais agindo para garantir o direito à alimentação de todos os brasileiros. Redução da insegurança alimentar, medida pela escala EBIA, objetivando alimentação saudável para todos. Desafios que podem ser antecipados A governança das políticas públicas só se realiza se os governos responsáveis estiverem comprometidos com a sociedade, no sentido de fazer valer direitos que foram adquiridos e garantidos junto às institucionalidades criadas para isso. Como existir governança sem governo? Há uma ausência do Governo Federal e das estruturas criadas para a garantia das ações voltadas para a Soberania e Segurança Alimentar e Nutricional, que foram desorganizadas ou destruídas. Recompor os Conselhos Municipais e Estaduais que dialogam com os poderes públicos para criação de políticas eficazes. Reverter o cenário causado pela extinção do CONSEA Nacional feito por um governo que não apoia a participação social e não tem interesse pela realização por meio de processos democráticos.236238244246247249Inocuidade dos alimentos e garantia de uma alimentação cada vez mais adequada, saudável e segura para todos/as. Ações urgentes e necessárias nos próximos 3 anos: Criar mecanismos de rastreabilidade dos produtos da agricultura, pesca e extrativismo familiar, de comunidades indígenas, comunidades quilombolas e demais comunidades tradicionais, com regras sanitárias mais simples que viabilizem alimentos seguros e certificados para o mercado, além de sistema que classifique a relação entre a produção do alimento e seu custo socioambiental. O conceito de alimentação segura deve incluir questões do uso de agrotóxico na produção, da violência em razão da disputa de terras, e do impacto climático pelo desmatamento. Fortalecer redes de agricultura familiar, pescadores/as artesanais, extrativistas, tornando-as mais integradas. Fomentar parcerias das cooperativas com os movimentos sociais, associações e entidades que defendem a produção agroecológica e a segurança e soberania alimentar. Promover o acesso das comunidades e pequenos produtores à terra, à água, à assistência técnica e a tecnologias para a produção e comercialização de alimentos seguros, com o apoio dos órgãos públicos, institutos de pesquisa e universidades. Introduzir saberes tradicionais e novos modelos de produção agroecológicos, como bioinsumos, agroindústria familiar para circuitos curtos, além de produtos diferentes dos convencionais. Recuperar as sementes crioulas, símbolo da preservação da agrobiodiversidade. Considerar as especificidades regionais e as lutas dos movimentos dos povos tradicionais do país nas ações de segurança alimentar e nutricional, vinculando-as à construção e à preservação de marcos legais e conceituais que reforcem as raízes culturais desses povos, além de reconhecerem a relação do alimento com a medicina tradicional preventiva e rituais históricos. Monitorar a violência no campo e criar canais de denúncia, um dos espaços que o extinto CONSEA (Conselho de Segurança Alimentar e Nutricional) ocupava. Quem deverá implementar? As ações devem ser tomadas pelo governo/poder público, mas na prática, isso ocorre e deve ocorrer também por meio da sociedade civil. Algumas ações podem ser tratadas a partir da iniciativa de conselhos e fóruns populares, além de campanhas que articulem parte das ações sugeridas. Na ausência da iniciativa do governo, as ações possíveis devem ser tomadas pela própria sociedade civil, através de mecanismos de articulação das instituições da sociedade civil. Como avaliar o progresso? Retomar e fortalecer os conselhos de política alimentar com participação social. Fortalecer os canais de denúncia e os mecanismos de garantia e monitoramento do direito humano à alimentação adequada, inclusive internacionais. Criar fóruns de agricultura familiar com todos os setores da sociedade. Ampliar os sistemas e mecanismos de garantia/selos, com agricultores participando do processo de certificação. Estimular o uso de aplicativos, pelos consumidores, para a avaliação da qualidade dos alimentos. Desafios que podem ser antecipados: Dificuldade de acesso aos recursos públicos ou a fundos locais de investimento para pequenos produtores. Bloqueio no recebimento de recursos internacionais, inclusive de doações para apoio à conservação do meio ambiente. Produtores e extrativistas com dificuldade de acesso à internet e suas ferramentas. Exclusão digital e conectividade escassa. Falta de acesso a técnicas e tecnologias adequadas para a matriz de produção de alimentos seguros, saudáveis e sustentáveis conectados a cada território e bioma. E de reconhecimento formal de quem produz, especialmente das mulheres, jovens e ações coletivas. Retrocesso na política de acesso à terra, e a destruição das políticas públicas e instrumentos de apoio à agricultura familiar. Fraqueza da governança alimentar, especialmente dos bens comuns como pesca, irrigação comunitária e aspectos fundiários. A governança deve caminhar para a criação de espaços como o Conselho Nacional de Segurança Alimentar, que poderiam recomendar ações para uma alimentação saudável e segura.237238Não houve o apontamento de discordâncias e todos ficaram à vontade para colocar o seu ponto de vista. Embora os participantes pertencessem a diferentes realidades, tanto da cidade quanto do campo, havia uma ligação comum representada por suas participações em ações de combate à insegurança alimentar ou à defesa de direitos. As opiniões foram colocadas de forma muitas vezes complementar , com posição independente e representação territorial de cada participante, o que trouxe uma visão diversificada sobre uma ação que tinha o mesmo objetivo. Embora tenha havido um acordo nos temas mais importantes, há que se destacar a diferença de ênfase colocada pelas pessoas de origem diversa, seja do ponto de vista regional ou rural/urbana, seja do ponto de vista de suas representações institucionais. Assim, por exemplo, pessoas do Norte do Brasil enfatizaram mais a questão dos alimentos naturais produzidos de forma sustentável; os representantes das organizações de produtores enfatizaram a importância da agricultura familiar na alimentação saudável; etc.

2021-05-21 14:00:14204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/9095/203

1273323724878213627933211385615175113111928

The 8 breakout rooms ensured active participation by all participants and created a space for free expression of ideas and perspectives. The participant assessment criteria ensured diversity among the group, taking into consideration the following: Areas of Expertise, Stakeholder group, Organization, Country, Gender and Age Group.Our aim was to have a balanced discussion where everybody has a say. Each facilitator from the breakout rooms created a safe space where everyone could confidentially express their opinion, which fostered a fruitful discussion amongst participants from diverse areas of expertise, sectors, stakeholder groups and more.Any advice to future or fellow Dialogue Conveners would be to ensure diversity across the participants within the breakout rooms during the discussion session. Be sure to leave at least one hour, and more if possible, for discussion about sustainable food systems.

Yes

234240241244247248249251This dialogue, organized by the Mountain Partnership Secretariat, aimed to show the specificity of mountain food systems as well as generate innovative and diverse solutions for more sustainable mountain food systems – solutions that could be useful for shaping more sustainable food systems worldwide. The major focus was the exploration of what would ideal sustainable mountain food systems look like in 10 years. Participants discussed the features that make mountain food systems sustainable or unsustainable and the relevance of some of the solutions proposed under Action Track 3 and 4, as well as some cross cutting issues particularly relevant for mountain people and environments, such as gender, innovation and technology. The only UN alliance that promotes the sustainable development of mountain areas and works towards building the resilience of mountain peoples worldwide, the Mountain Partnership counts more than 400 members among governments, intergovernmental organizations and major groups (e.g. civil society, NGOs and the private sector). Mountains cover more than one-quarter of the Earth’s land surface and are home to 1.1 billion people, almost 15 percent of the world’s population. More than 90 percent of the world’s mountain dwellers live in developing countries, including 648 million people in rural areas, where a vast majority live below the poverty line and one out of two people faces the threat of food insecurity. This dialogue aimed to draw attention to: 1. the disproportionately high level of food insecure people living in mountain areas; 2. sustainable food systems' role as drivers of mountain development due to their potential for small- and medium-sized enterprises, and their links with tourism and niche markets; 3. the globally relevant ecosystem services and goods provided by mountains, such as water provision and regulation, erosion control and disaster risk reduction as well as biodiversity and agrobiodiversity conservation; and 4. the need to discuss inclusive policies and governance systems in mountains. The dialogue has been an opportunity for Mountain Partnership members and relevant stakeholders to raise their voices about the relevance of developing more sustainable food systems in mountains during the consultation process. leading to the Summit and to propose solutions to achieve these goals.235240241244247248249251Mountain ecosystems are globally relevant for sustainable food systems. Mountain food systems are extremely diverse, both culturally and biologically. Mountain areas are highly vulnerable to climate change and natural hazards. Mountain people are custodians and managers of this high diversity and ensure the provision of ecosystem services to the lowlands, such as water regulation. Women in mountains are holders of agroecological knowledge and agrobiodiversity conservation for food systems and are often the heads of households, but in certain areas lack access to basic services such as credit and training. The international community and policy makers need to recognize mountains as vulnerable ecosystems. Mountains’ role in supporting sustainable food systems is still neglected and must be acknowledged. Mountain peoples have shaped mountain landscapes and food systems over centuries, but this equilibrium is being destabilized. There is a trend towards a simplification of mountain food systems, with a preference towards commercial and fast-growing crops. Many varieties are disappearing, not only leading to biodiversity loss, but also causing a shift toward unbalanced diets due to the abandonment of traditional diets. Mountain food systems are often for self-consumption and are less dependent on external inputs. Landholding is small and most practices are traditional with low chemical inputs and not mechanized. Traditional crops have much lower yields than their lowland counterparts do, and there is a lack of research on how to sustainably improve production. Intensive production systems are not feasible or sustainable in mountain ecosystems and should be avoided. High quality, highly biodiverse and low-impact products should be given priority. Pastoralism is a key economic activity in mountains, and access to pastures is important. Policies are needed to secure pastoralists’ rights to pastures and migration routes. In some mountain areas, the population growth has passed the carrying capacity threshold while in others the issues of outmigration are causing a serious depopulation with irreversible loss of culture and knowledge. The reduced access to services and education as well as the need to create alternative livelihood options in mountains need to be taken into consideration to increase income generation activities and youth engagement. Diversification of activities in the field and on the farm is crucial for building the resilience of mountain people’s livelihoods, and agroecological approaches can help at different scales. Mountain products are often high quality and low impact and have a potential to lift mountain people out of poverty. Most mountain products are climate resilient and have high nutritional value, but they are often neglected as policies do not support their production. Distorted and unequitable value chains are a serious problem for mountain producers. Public policies have a role in incentivizing direct investments to support private action and guaranteeing access to markets through adequate infrastructures. Public sector can have an important role in raising awareness as well as promoting consumers’ understanding of the value, culture and quality behind each product. Mountain agriculture needs participatory innovations to address the disconnect between producers, industries and consumers. Technology can be key in connecting mountains and markets as well as connecting communities in mountains. The organization of farmers through cooperatives and different associations is crucial to strengthen value chains, ensure fair compensation and increase mountain producers’ voices in the political debate. Collective marketing and product aggregation are necessary to support mountain value chains. Policies, technologies and innovations in agriculture have largely been designed for men and lowlands. They need to be tailored to mountain environments and people, including women and youth. The narrative, representation, visibility (i.e. through data) and role of women is essential for their agency and access to resources. Social protection is essential and should be considered in view of the frequent occurrence of disasters and risks in mountains. The role of mountain communities, institutions and the Mountain Partnership is to: • Develop programmes that focus on watershed management creating alternative livelihood opportunities for mountain communities. • Strengthen and maintain cultural diversity and identity, documenting indigenous knowledge. • Promote capacity building as a coping mechanism for indigenous communities and women in mountain areas. • Ensure that mountain people have the same access to services and infrastructures as lowland people and that their human rights are respected. • Preserve the local breeds that pastoralists rely on. • Develop indigenous seed banks within communities, possibly with the help of governments. • Compile a database on climate-resilient mountain crops and try to influence the use and adoption of these crops. • Promote mountain products and raise awareness of their value. • Identify and map biodiversity hotspots. • Promote cooperation between institutions. • Build local agribusinesses. • Conduct regional consultations that include mountain communities to give mountain people the opportunity to express their own desired development trajectories.236240244248249251Action Track 3, Action Areas PROTECT, MANAGE AND RESTORE NATURAL ECOSYSTEMS: • Develop and support mountain-specific research and innovation. • Mainstream mountain crops and livestock in policies and research to protect traditional and indigenous food systems including neglected crops and native livestock, local knowledge and practices. • Set up participatory research and innovation mechanisms, as well as multi-stakeholder incentive-based mechanisms. Support the alignment of mountain food systems with national policies, and the alignment of national policies with local potential and farmers’ priorities, addressing land rights and tenure issues. • Map agroecological potential in mountains, and establish mountain-specific crop and livestock databases, to promote understanding of the ecosystem services they provide to upstream and downstream communities, to address trade-offs and promote opportunities for mountains in regional and global fora. • Promote climate services and early warning systems as key tools to mitigate degradation of natural resources in mountains and better respond to climate change impacts. • Include the impacts of climate change on mountains in policy, and create opportunities for climate resilient crops and for mountain-specific technology. • Promote the leadership of local people as a strategy to restore degraded ecosystems by integrating them in policy-making processes and promoting cooperative work to achieve better results and negotiation prices and increased resilience. • Focus on alternative income sources and the natural diversity of mountain ecosystems. • Bring youth back into mountains and restore degraded ecosystems by creating enabling economic conditions using traditional knowledge provided by older generations and farmers • Study and document the traditional knowledge of mountain communities. Promote the engagement of a broader set of actors.236241244248249251Action Track 4, Action Areas FAIR AND INCLUSIVE VALUE CHAINS AND LOCAL MARKETS: • Promote capacity development to contrast distorted, unequitable value chains, bringing education and training on production, technologies, processing, commercialization and certification to remote areas. • Support agrobiodiversity to reduce risk and maintain genetic diversity at field level; income diversified livelihoods through off-farm activities, agrotourism, heritage-based artisanal products, and nonagricultural products at the farm level; recognition of and payment for ecosystems services at landscape level. • Develop public-private partnership to promote and implement necessary policies, investments and incentives on mountain areas at national and regional level, focusing on specific sectors such as processing and food loss reduction. • Market mountain food as “smart food” due to their not depending on intensive and harmful agricultural inputs. • Increase consumers' awareness and understanding of the importance of mountain products though narrative labels, traditional production certification and organic certification, moving from the “commodity” approach to products with a face, story and heritage.236244248249251Cross-cutting issues TECHNOLOGY, INNOVATION and GENDER: • Tailor technology and innovations in mountain food systems to all people, including women and youth, and develop the capacity of local people on best agricultural practices in mountains. • Promote participatory approaches to develop technology and innovations that accommodate traditional and indigenous food culture and knowledge. • Support the engagement of Mountain Partnership members, and facilitate their linkages to decision-making structures. • Ensure inclusivity, equality and equity in all processes, decision-making and representation. • Examine opportunities to build women’s capacity on all levels, recognizing women as holders of agroecological knowledge and agrobiodiversity conservation for mountain food systems. • Develop solutions that take the specific, local context (including trade-offs) into account, and acknowledge the diversity in mountain regions. • Improve social protection in mountains. Facilitate women’s access to insurance and health services. • Build the capacity of elected women members of local councils in mountainous regions to protect natural resources. • Promote the concepts of "justice" (i.e. social and environmental) and solidarity (i.e. lowlands-highlands, taxation, redistribution of economic wealth).237240241244248249251When discussing food systems in mountains, participants held different opinions on: • Economic sustainability of mountain food systems: Some saw the high costs of agricultural production in mountain as unsustainable. There are no one-size-fits-all solutions, and an approach that can work in one mountain environment will not necessarily work in all contexts. For example, using tourism as a tool for improving livelihoods was viewed by some as potentially contributing to the dispossession and marginalization of pastoralists and benefitting only the local elite and/or external stakeholders. • Market development: Developing markets does not automatically mean that the most vulnerable will benefit, and it can compromise authenticity and diversity. • Outmigration: There was not agreement on whether outmigration should be opposed or organized and structured, as – for example – from a young mountain farmer’s perspective, migrating could be the best option. • Increasing access to technology: There is uncertainty whether the introduction of technology is compatible with maintaining traditional values and cultures, and whether this is feasible in rural mountain areas where all young people have left. Traditional knowledge is not static and not necessarily manifesting the same way in young people, who are intermittently migrating to cities and collecting other types of knowledge. Technologies and infrastructural developments may also not be coherent with local needs. For example, afforestation in mountains with drones spreading one species could be in conflict with local biodiversity needs. • Power relations: There are power dynamics within mountain communities as well as between the highlands and plains that cannot be ignored. Social norms, access and infrastructures need to be worked on. • Social protection for mountain women: The issue of social protection and gender equality is locality and context specific. There cannot be a blanket approach to addressing access to resources, women’s agency, decision-making regarding the use resources, and creating advantageous economic opportunities. • Issue of social justice: Mountain people have the right to decide their own development trajectory. It is necessary to give voice to mountain people so that they can express their idea of development. This can create divergences, for example, with how mountain indigenous food systems could change: will they have a market driven trajectory, or will other elements (conservation of identity, cultural-based decisions, etc.) be considered? Conflicts among stakeholders and conflicting interests Conflicts of interest between institutions: Ministry of Environment vs. Ministry of Agriculture, vs mining rights etc. Research institutions often focus on national priority crops, which are in conflict with traditional crops. At local level, there is more research on indigenous local products. In some mountain areas, private sectors are coming out with product diversification, which conflicts with the main crops being promoted by the public sector. Conflicts also exist between policy makers and local farmers. Mountain people can be considered a burden to governments because it is expensive to support them. Mountain people and ecosystems, however, should be viewed as a positive value. If mountain farmers are given the necessary tools, they could scale up their agriculture production. The challenge is to create a multi-stakeholder platform including all stakeholders to ensure that all interests are represented and discussed together to identify how can they complement each other.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Mountain-Partnership-Infosheet-2021.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Mountain-Partnership-Biodiversity-Policy-Note.pdfhttp://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/cb2409enhttp://www.fao.org/family-farming/detail/en/c/273812/http://www.fao.org/mountain-partnership/publications/publication-detail/en/c/1204781/

2021-05-21 14:39:17204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/16701/98

40

Yes

234238239240241242245246248249The discussion explored opportunities and solutions to improve the resilience of Kisumu’s food system. It considered possibilities for transforming the food system to one that is less dependent on external forces and actors for its sustainability. This was done by exploring instrumental policies, incentive mechanisms and initiatives which can be adopted to spur systemic transformation of Kisumu’s food system. The dialogue also highlighted major food system transformation stakeholders in Kisumu, what their requirements in order to drive food system transformation are, and how stakeholder collaboration can be strengthened. Overall, the dialogue unpacked ways in which governance arrangements of Kisumu’s food system can be improved.235238239240241242245246248249The discussions stressed the need for enabling policy frameworks that will allow all food system actors in Kisumu to thrive and this was emphasized all across the Action Tracks. Creating this enabling environment for the transformation of Kisumu’s food system, the discussants noted, starts from contextualizing the regional and national food and nutrition policies such as the Food and Nutrition Security Policy (2012), and scaling them down to the local level. Policies that can guide growth across the food value chain should be put in place particularly in production (embracing aspects such as urban agriculture, fishing support and regulations as well as agroecology which relates to nature-positive production (Action Track 3). It was concluded that there is need to develop and implement a comprehensive food policy for the city region. Given that Kisumu is presently dependent on external regions and actors for its food needs, participants noted the need to enable the growth of the logistics and transportation sector which delivers safe and efficient transportation of food across and within the county. Discussants also reflected on how consumption can be regulated and improved locally. They noted the need for better consumption of nutritious foods through investment in feeding programmes in schools, public hospitals and other government institutions including correctional centres. In terms of trade and marketing, the discussions explored how best farmers can be supported in facilitating their access to both input and output markets. Participants argued that government needs to partner with both private and international development institutions to enhance market access for farmers. Initiatives should not only consider formal market channels but must also embrace the informal sector. Development partners were urged to play more active roles in providing training and services including trainings on how nature-based solutions can be incorporated in agriculture. There is the need to establish a farmers resource center where farmers can learn and be shown how to farm crops in the right way. The center should be in a position to educate and help farmers with soil management, crop production, and crop protection challenges. It should also be a demonstration area for urban agriculture and should have a list of alternative crops that can grow in the area. The center should also be able to network farmers so that they can learn from each other through networking. It is also important, according to the participants, that enabling policies for the growth of the circular economy are put in place. This would include the introduction of a comprehensive waste management strategy that encompasses waste across the entire food value chain. They argued that waste must also be considered as resource to produce energy, fertilizers etc. Participants emphasized that initiatives to incentivize and empower participation of vulnerable groups particularly youth and women are needed. These should include access to land and other resources that can facilitate their participation in food production. Opportunities for moving towards a more inclusive and food sensitive urban planning strategy, that recognizes the role of both formal and informal actors across the food value chain needs to be explored, participants noted. Urban planning has a critical role to play in strengthening urban food systems, and this should incorporate emergency food planning in light of the effect of the Covid-19 pandemic on food and nutrition security. Participants also highlighted the need to improve access to finance to small-scale food actors such as smallholders. This financing opportunities could be in form of revolving loans or other loan-provisioning mechanisms. It should also explore public-private and donor partnerships in loan provisioning. Participants argued that ten percent of the county’s budget should be dedicated to agriculture. Investment in infrastructure was emphasized by participants as crucial to the transformation of Kisumu’s food system. This should include investment in water infrastructure, transport infrastructure, market infrastructure and storage facilities for farmers and traders. Market information system infrastructure was also highlighted as important to ensure the sustainability of Kisumu’s food system. There is need for awareness creation among households in the county, especially on the consumption of nutritious diets. Consumption patterns are mainly affected by income levels, perceptions and creating awareness through sensitisation campaigns can contribute towards shaping the right perceptions on nutrition. For farmers, sensitisation campaigns can also drive transformation towards a more sustainable agricultural production. Finally, participants noted that most sectors and actors still operate in silos with little appreciation of the linkages and benefits of synergistic relationships. The need for a more collaborative governance approach of the Kisumu’s food system was therefore emphasised. This should be done by building networks and stakeholder groups, as well as creating spaces for dialogues, cooperation, sharing, co-learning and co-creation in a bid to transform Kisumu’s food system.236238239240241242245246248249Participants highlighted some major food system stakeholders and their requirements to ensure sustainability of Kisumu’s food system. These are: Farmers: They are important and critical because they produce the food consumed by residents of Kisumu. Requirements for them are markets, capacity building. This has been missing for some time as there are not enough extension officers. There is a need for specialised institutions of higher learning where agricultural production is taught. Researchers: Whereas the farmers may be visualising what is needed, sometimes they need researchers to articulate this in order to drive innovation. Funding is critical in order for impactful research to be undertaken. This can be facilitated by government and donor agencies. Technical experts: Many people are shying away from studying agriculture related subjects which is dangerous for the county and country. Efforts must therefore be geared towards incentivising people to study agriculture and food-related subject. Donors: Donors are important. However, they require good policies and systems to be put in place by the government so that they can be encouraged to come in and to ensure that their efforts are impactful. Government should do more to put better policies and systems in place to facilitate the work of donors. Civil Society: CSOs should take a leading role in advocating for the rights of the farmers, the plights of farmers, and things that affect stakeholders within the food system. Documentaries can be used to articulate the plight of the farmers. They also need to emphasise the challenge of food prices. Food-related CSOs need enabling policy environment to function effectively. Other key points and suggestions include the following: • Technology and innovation: Strengthen co-production of knowledge for innovation and technology. • Infrastructure: Investment in water, transport and storage infrastructure should be prioritised. Policies on water harvesting, flood water control should be initiated. • Capacity development: Capacity of technical officers needs to be improved. The County government should give priority to bringing technical people on board to the county • Access to market: Access to both input and output market is important for farmers, hence this needs to be improved. • Social networks: Enhance social networks including collective community, fishing community • Agricultural Extension: There is need to recruit, retain, train and empower extension officers in order to build the capacity of farmers and improve their productivity.237None

2021-05-21 14:45:35204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/14088/203

35010232001718063121121314521211272331717

-We made sure to invite a diverse set of participants -The curator reminded everyone to be respectful, embrace diversity, actively listen & act according to these principles -Our facilitators were briefed in advanced, everyone had the training, so they could make sure to incorporate the principles in each of our discussion groups-Even though, we had some opposing views, everyone was recognized and treated respectfully -We followed a multi-stakeholder approach, inviting everyone involved “from farm to fork” -We built new connections, complemented each other’s work and will keep discussing

Yes

234238239240241242243244245247248249251The European Union aims to be at the forefront of global food sustainability, including initiatives such as the European Green New Deal, as well as working towards achieving the aims of the 17 SDGs. This Dialogue explored the role of innovation in meeting food sustainability challenges, and how to create an enabling environment that will allow next-gen entrepreneurs, start-ups and business to bring forward the game-changing solutions needed. This Dialogue brought together and heard perspectives from diverse stakeholders based in the EU, looking to include next-generation innovators, farmers, scientists, public and private sector representatives, civil society representatives, activists, as well as stakeholders in other areas of the food and agriculture industry. In alignment with the goals of the Action Tracks and the United Nations Food Systems Summit 2021, this Dialogue aimed to explore the opportunities for innovation in the EU to transform food systems.2352392402412422432442452472482492511. There are several challenges that require urgent action in the food systems, such as climate change, unsustainable farming practices (impacting soil, water quality, and biodiversity), access to quality food and the complexity of food value chains, where sustainability issues are predominant. There is a feeling of urgency that will require R&I to foster transitions to a more sustainable and equitable world. 2. Small actors in the food system need a greater voice, that goes from the small farmer to the individual consumer and includes SMEs which are the majority of the food systems actors (99%) and are often not accessing the innovation being produced by researchers and innovation providers. It is key also to understand the sectoral and regional/cultural aspects of food systems, thus a multistakeholder approach is needed at different levels (global, European, national, regional), and shall be facilitated by policy makers. It was noted that multinationals (e.g. seed companies) are relevant in the discussion, but must not be allowed to ‘abuse’ their power. 3. Behaviour and attitude is as important as technology. Many solutions discussed were less technical, and more behavioural: Communication and cooperation between science providers and implementation actors, policy and financial support to the food systems R&I ecosystem, more design systemic solutions that connects the food system challenges, the role of young entrepreneurs and start-ups in the food systems R&I, or multi stakeholder commitments to achieve greater goals using R&I. 4. Empower consumers through education which can impact acceptance of innovation. Science-based education on food and how it is produced is key, particularly targeting consumers (and policymakers), and starting from schools. Empowering consumers from being ‘passive’ to ‘active’, includes better product information. The concept and understanding of food systems is not well understood, and the role of all actors in a value chain (producers, processors, distributors, consumers etc.) needs to be better explained, and a holistic solution sought. 5. We need to more prominently include startups and next-generation innovators in food systems transformation. Innovation comes faster than regulation, and the next-generation has the tools and skillset to enable this shift towards more sustainable food systems for all. As digital natives, the next-generation inherently understands the importance of digitalization and data-driven decision-making. The next-generation also embodies the key attitudes needed to facilitate this food systems change - openness, willingness to adopt alternative business models (circular economy, cradle to cradle), and nimbleness to adapt quickly to changes and navigate through ambiguity (especially in the times of COVID-19). Young entrepreneurs embody all of these behaviors to create innovative and new products and services using (and even re-using) existing resources with a greater focus on sustainability. The regulatory framework (transparent, science-based, pragmatic) needs to allow innovations into the market. 6. Money is important. Farmers need an income, food businesses need to make a profit, and consumers need affordable food. No farmer has a problem with having fewer cattle if he/she has the same income, but they also need legal clarity and stability. Farmers will also be more willing to grow a wider variety of crops – if the market is there. 7. But profit must not be the only consideration. Business must be supported by governments to pursue sustainable practices and to do ‘what is right for the world’ not just what will make the most money. Business should be rewarded for doing good and called out for failing. 8. Solutions must be multi-stakeholder. Solutions must be tailored, policies must be inclusive and multi-stakeholder approaches and listening must underpin all approaches. Everyone must contribute as much as they can, we need to foster a dialogue among everyone involved. 9. Solutions must not come in isolation. That is to say there must be a supply chain approach where the complexities and needs of different actors – from farm to fork – are taken on board. 10. There must be political will. EU policymakers must forget about re-election and short-termism and fear of failure and act now to send a clear signal to farmers, food business and consumers that business as usual is not an option. For true change to happen, politics need to make the first step by putting supporting regulations in place, and it needs to happen NOW.236239240241243244245247248249250Main problems in the food system 1.1 Food Production, Farming and Manufacturing: -Climate change – emissions are still too high. -Biodiversity – our use of resources (soil and water) is harming the environment. -Big business – large-scale globalised monoculture production is still dominant, and it is hard for small and diverse businesses to cut through. -Food waste and loss – we still lose a third of food produced (whether loss at farm level or wasted after the farm gate). -Scale – it is easier for big companies to make the leap to more sustainable practices and gain a competitive edge, but smaller companies are left behind and need support. -Food chain length – there are too many steps in a complex food chain. Food Transports, Storage and Packaging: -Energy – transport and packaging are still too reliant on non-renewable energies. -Excessive packaging – there is a need for sustainable packaging. -Circular economy – we need to improve resource efficiency (not only for production, but for every part of the chain) and avoid food waste. Keep ‘waste’ in the cycle and don’t let it go to waste. 1.2 Food Consumption, Nutrition and Waste: -Food information – there is a lack of information on food and general awareness on food, malnutrition, and over-nutrition. -Obesity – there are too many people eating a poor diet -Education – there is a lack on education on issues related to food (e.g., food safety, here food is coming from, how food is produced) 1.3 Policy: -Slow policy – the policy environment is not fast enough and can slow down innovation. The classical system will not work anymore, we need a different approach. -Siloed thinking – there has been a lack of a holistic food policy. The F2F strategy can be the answer but it will be a challenge to implement all the ambitions. We need to start thinking about the food system as a whole. -Scale – innovation can be difficult to scale up, due to costs but also behaviour. It is hard to make people change their behaviour because of culture and habits. For this we need communication, data.236239240241242243244245246247248249250251Main challenges to bring forward innovation: 2.1. Several main players were identified: consumers, regulators, producers (manufacturers, primary production, packaging) and media: oConsumer awareness is important. The role of the consumer is fundamental to understand that a seasonal product is seasonal, innovation while duly regulated is good, regenerative agriculture is the future, monoculture is damaging ett. oManufacturers need to deliver according to what the regulatory environment allows, ensuring less packaging, regenerative agriculture, UN SDG goals oRegulators need to continue helping enabling operators to act, but innovation runs very fast. oThe media (traditional press or social media) has an important role as it will portray an innovation as good or bad, regardless of the science. 2.2 Bringing scale: oThere is a challenge to take an innovation from niche to mass market – for that, regulatory support is needed. 2.3 Making it pay: oIt costs a lot to bring innovation to market – innovators need regulatory certainty to give them confidence to invest. oIf farmers are to try new methods or diversify their crops, they need certainty that they will make a profit. 2.4 Intellectual property rights: oStart-ups need access to IP, and large MNCs should not guard IP when they are slowing down new innovation.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251How we expect the future to be Participants broadly agreed that: -The Green Deal will be successful in making the EU climate-neutral by 2050 (with a few notable exceptions). -Algae will be a substantial part of our diets very soon. -It is unlikely that the world will be entirely plant-based but certainly more of an up-take of alternative proteins (including insects) will be widespread. -Micro-farming for consumers will be more widespread. -There will be higher consciousness of the food system, a larger systemic understanding of food and biodiversity. -Personalised nutrition and digital apps will help consumers tackle the burden of NCDs. -More foods will be medicinal as well: Nutraceuticals. -There will be a closer collaboration of stakeholders (consumers + regulators + operators + others) through a strong dialogue. -Consumers are able to make informed choices, they need to be well-educated, starting at school. Quality of the information should be transparent and science based. Access to information (my carbon footprint, my nutritional needs) will be easy and digital. -There will be a regulatory environment that is pragmatic and allows consumers to have access to innovation. -Food production should be as organic as possible. In developing countries this might come at a slower pace.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Enablers to innovation: Who: Entrepreneurs and innovators; farmers; agile players; consumers; private companies; regulators/policymakers; scientists/academics; NGOs; young people; retailers. What: Technologies; transparent frameworks; multi-stakeholder approaches; co-creation; an open-mind; funding (public and private); decentralized autonomous organisations; open-source solutions; public procurement processes; multinational agreements impact framed, education; openness to change.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Inhibitors to innovation: Who: Policymakers/regulators; passive consumers; multinationals that own intellectual property (to detriment of others); cartels and monopolies. What: Price competitiveness, environmental costs not built into consumer prices; political cycles are too short-term; polarized debates; hunt for profit over purpose; bargaining power; lack of connection between science and entrepreneurs; a low risk attitude in the EU which can stifle innovation and lead to a brain drain.236239240241242243244245246247248249250251Potential solutions & main drivers We must: -Invest in education and better communicate innovation to the public. The role of schools is particularly important. -Support start-up incubators. -Involve all players and stakeholders. -Open mindsets to new solutions. -Digitalise consumer information (including positive and negative consumer labelling (e.g. tobacco ads!) and connect consumers with local producers. -Empower consumers as a force for change. -Engage consumers at the EU-level. -Enable knowledge sharing and open-source solutions. -Connect academia and industry (e.g., the European Technology Platform innovation Strategic Research Innovation Agenda, built between academia and the food industry: -Bring political incentives. -Ensure financial support. -Give a greater voice to small players (such as small farmer communities and SMEs). -Learn to connect R&D with farmers and other implementers (knowledge transfer). -Develop a EU food policy that connects the food systems challenges (all solutions are interrelated). -Harness the ideas of young people. -Find the true cost of food so that consumers can choose which product to buy not only in terms of price but also on how it was produced. -Ensure trade agreements guarantee sustainability requirements.237239240243244248249250The following statements had opposing views from participants: -The discussion can become too focused on farmers and agriculture and not enough connection to food processing and consumer behaviour. -Small farmers, SMEs and consumers are often missing from the discussion (we all talk on their behalf, but they are not ‘in the system’ to join these sorts of discussions. They also do not have time!) -We strive for circularity in the economy and yet we do not recognize circularity in existing systems. An example is the pork industry, which - according to one of our participants - is fully circular. Abandoning pork production may cause input shortages in other sectors of the economy. -Consumer preferences and actions are contradicting each other: Two examples would be wanting to eat only local food, but have it available all year round, as well as asking for the highest quality food, but not willing to pay a premium for it.

https://miro.com/app/board/o9J_lDfDix4=/

2021-05-21 15:05:37204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/12562/203

620425276402221126542417223161292219312

Urgency, commit to summit: group work included focus on action in relation to 5 action track areas. Complexity, multi-stakeholder: some 13 different stakeholder typologies participated. Respect complement work of others, build trust: careful selection and training of facilitators; ensuring groups were as mixed as possible. Participants and facilitators alike were alerted to expect difficult conversations, sometimes with ‘people who trouble them’, with an emphasis on being creative, having new conversations and finding innovative solutions. [NOTE the numbers of participants do not include curators, facilitators, rapporteurs]As above. We made a special effort to include diversity, with almost half the registered participants indicating ‘non-livestock’. However, the final composition had more livestock participants. About 30 registered people did not join and many were the non-livestock folks. Our dialogue had two curators who shared the tasks of: Moderating the plenary sessions and providing participants with an overview of the process before, during and after the dialogue. Group guidance included: • Provide safe, inclusive spaces to discuss issues around specific topics • Seek consensus while allowing diverse opinions to be aired; • Identify a desired scenario - by 2030 - and the key outcomes • Listen and be respectful • Recognize complexity - no magic bullet or binary solutions • Acknowledge the diversity of perspectives • Identify practical actions and ways forward • All voices count – every contribution is essential but will not be attributed (Chatham House rules for discussion groups) Following a short plenary session in which the dialogue context and ambition were highlighted, there were short plenary remarks covering food security, and visions for livestock in future food systems in relation to ‘food’ ‘environment’ and ‘livestock sustainability’. The opening and closing plenary sessions were webcast and can be found here: http://www.fao.org/webcast/home/en/item/5566/icode/. Discussion groups were organized around topics related to the five food system dialogue action tracks, with two groups per track and one group entirely Spanish; one group entirely French. We had a team of facilitators and note takers (one of each per group) who were able to join a pre-dialogue training session to ensure all were familiar with the task in hand, aware they must include all participants and ensure that both convergence and divergence should be respected and surfaced. Each discussion group had a set of google slides, which were shared as the group was underway so that that the participants could see and agree to the recorded notes which have been consolidated for this report.Allow as much time as possible for discussion groups. Ensure that facilitators and note takers are well-briefed and able to allow innovative conversations – not just filling up ‘answers’. Provide a template for the group’s findings and ensure that everyone in the group sees their inputs captured – convergence and divergence!

Yes

234238239240241242243244248249250251The dialogue focused on engaging and harnessing the diversity of both livestock sector stakeholders (taking advantage of the global spread and multi-stakeholder nature of the Global Agenda for Sustainable Livestock, GASL) and those who are not directly engaged with livestock – from development agencies and practitioners to food sector actors and beyond. It included participants from all over the world, from pastoralists and farmers of all capacities who produce food to those who process, market and research food and wider food system dimensions. It aimed to facilitate new conversations to identify the pathways of change and diverse solutions that are needed to ensure that livestock contributes across all action tracks and levers of change to future food systems. Prior to the dialogue, participants received a diverse set of resource materials about the roles of livestock and sustainable development. Each discussion group focused on one of the five action tracks, asking the question ‘…to what extent and how can changes in livestock systems…’ followed by a statement describing some contrasts in possible roles…’. Discussion group topics were: 1. Providing equitable access by all to diverse as well as safe and nutritious foods: To what extent, and how, can changes in livestock systems benefit everyone, including the most vulnerable and poorest people, overcome food poverty and help end hunger and malnutrition in cities and rural areas – without compromising other goals in areas like health, environment or animal welfare? 2. Achieving just and balanced consumption of diverse food sources: To what extent, and how, can changes to the consumption of livestock-derived foods help the transition to healthy diets for all – without increasing obesity or the incidence of non-communicable disease? 3. Staying inside planetary natural and environmental boundaries and tackling the climate emergency: To what extent, and how, can changes to livestock systems benefit nature and ecosystems and help us adapt to or mitigate climate change – while also sustaining people’s livelihoods and their nutrition and health? 4. Growing economic opportunities without compromising our sustainability goals: To what extent, and how, can changes in livestock keeping, livestock ownership or livestock as a business help advance equitable livelihoods and achieve healthier diets – without damaging our natural resources or leaving anyone behind? 5. Building resilience to overcome food system vulnerabilities, shocks and stresses: To what extent, and how, can changes to livestock systems help us prepare for, withstand, and recover from natural disasters, conflicts or disease threats – without unintentionally increasing the risks that livestock contribute to these? Discussion groups used the following questions to guide their conversations and structure feedback: • What is our consensus position – as a group - on this question? Where do we want to be in 2030? • What actions in the next 3 years will have greatest impact on the Discussion Topic and the outcomes we identified? • How will we measure or tell if these actions are successful? • What critical divergences in opinion among group participants are revealed, what are their effects, and how might we manage them?235238239240241242243244248249250251Embracing change: new connections Although the majority of participants were in some way connected with the livestock sector, there was consensus that further engagement is needed with those beyond the sector, whether in health, nutrition, food security, equity, environment, etc., or those who believe that animal agriculture and the consumption of livestock products should stop. Facilitating such engagement will require deliberate efforts from livestock stakeholders, including multi-stakeholder processes within and beyond the sector. The UN FSS provides a forum to expand and continue these conversations. Participants recognized that discussions about livestock often focus on the production aspects of the sector, and that these discourses need to expand, especially to include communications across the sector and especially with consumers. Harnessing diversity and nuancing communication Participants recognized that the global discussion about livestock usually lacks the nuance that reflects the diversity of the sector and thus the solutions required to ensure its contributions to future food systems. It was emphasized that a polarized debate that has extremes of ‘livestock all bad’ or ‘livestock all good’ is unhelpful and does not reflect the diversity of livestock roles across the world, or the need for multiple, different changes and solutions throughout the sector towards better food systems in future. The most-cited examples of global discourse that does not account for livestock sector diversity concerned the consumption of livestock-derived foods and the impacts on the environment. For the former it was noted that for wealthier countries and segments of the population across the world, the message about reducing consumption of livestock-derived foods or making dietary choices (such as veganism or vegetarianism) facilitated by easy access to diverse nutrients may be appropriate. For less-wealthy countries and populations, improving access, availability and affordability of quality, safe, livestock-derived foods could make a significant, positive difference to nutritional wellbeing (and its wider ramifications for stunting, cognitive development etc), especially for the most vulnerable (pregnant and lactating mothers, children in the first 1000 or even 3000 days, elderly). Regarding livestock and the environment, participants again highlighted contrasting narratives, between the damage livestock production inflicts on the environment and the positive benefits that must be harnessed. These range from emissions of greenhouse gases from ruminant animals where improving production efficiencies (emissions per unit of product) is paramount in most LMICs, to opportunities for carbon sequestration and biodiversity conservation across the world’s vast rangelands, to opportunities for regenerative agriculture approaches based on livestock management. Both of these (and other, such as One Health) areas will benefit from stronger, credible, well-communicated scientific evidence to inform all stakeholders, from policy makers to farmers to consumers and schoolchildren on the choices and implications as well as appropriate incentives. Presently, this is hampered by multiple very different global statistics which are often inappropriately extrapolated. Communication also needs to better incorporate very diverse, often essential roles of livestock for livelihoods, women and youth. Embracing change: action within the livestock sector The diverse livestock sector actors who joined the dialogue all acknowledge that, as with all sectors, change towards better future food systems must be embraced. What that change looks like is incredibly diverse because of the diversity of ways that animals and their products are raised, managed and consumed as well as their multiple roles. Key areas for change that were recognized include tackling those hard areas where livestock are indeed problematic – where environmental impacts, consumption patterns and production strategies are harming the planet and its people. Change also means grasping opportunities where incentives, information and policy can better support livestock’s positive contributions to environmental, health and livelihood outcomes. All livestock sector stakeholders must engage and commit to diverse and significant change. Such change needs to be informed by robust evidence and must include engagement well beyond the livestock sector itself. The livestock sector’s commitment to change must however go well beyond changing conversations and nuancing debates. It requires collective action, potentially facilitated through multisectoral and multi-stakeholder dialogues. Importantly, it is incumbent upon the sector to provide and embrace practical solutions to mitigate the challenges and harness the opportunities for livestock to fully play a role in sustainable future food systems. Among the 2030 outcomes for the sector were: healthier, more productive, and well cared for animals; reducing carbon emissions from livestock; quality over quantity; improve productivity, efficiency, sustainability, and resilience of the livestock sector; moving to regenerative farming; change the negative image of the sector; and to acknowledge and secure the contributions livestock for a healthy planet, its people and their diets.236238243248249250Discussion topic 1: Providing equitable access by all to diverse as well as safe and nutritious foods: To what extent, and how, can changes in livestock systems benefit everyone, including the most vulnerable and poorest people, overcome food poverty and help end hunger and malnutrition in cities and rural areas – without compromising other goals in areas like health, environment or animal welfare? The consensus position was to scale out game-changing policies, technologies and business models that equip existing small-holders, pastoralist communities and agripreneurs. The outputs from these systems will be of high quality, environmentally sustainable and maximise human health. Making this work in a balanced way includes: - Championing smallholders and pastoralists. - Sustainable intensification adapted to local conditions, scaled by robust business models and producing high quality food. - Improved animal husbandry that reduces the need for antibiotics along with other social and environmental benefits. - Shift the focus of production, processing and marketing of livestock commodities more towards quality. - Recognize the essential role of diversity to ensure resilience. - Phase out or penalize current practices that result in environmental and public health externalities (and/or incentivize sustainable, healthy options). Actions to impact this topic include: - Policy changes that secure land rights, prevent ‘dumping’ of low-cost livestock commodities in developing countries and that champion small/medium farms and pastoralists. - Study and replicate successful business models (e.g. Ethio-chicken). - Identify new feed options. The success of such actions could be indicated through: - Public sector investment will support and facilitate such policy changes - Commercial viability. Not increasing livestock numbers but quality and yield. - Transparency – reporting, metrics, incentives to mitigate environmental impact236239243244248249250Discussion topic 2: Achieving just and balanced consumption of diverse food sources: To what extent, and how, can changes to the consumption of livestock-derived foods help the transition to healthy diets for all – without increasing obesity or the incidence of non-communicable disease? The consensus position was that overall, there is a need to rebalance policies and discussions about consumption of livestock-derived foods related to local needs/context; to follow dietary recommendations on nutrition & health (avoid ultra-processed food), and ensure livestock is produced sustainably. Consumers need to make informed choices through more information, understanding, metrics, policies and incentives. Rebalance consumption: Ambitions should focus on rebalancing consumption and recognise that polarisation of the debate about consumption of livestock-derived foods is not helpful. - A better understanding of the relationship between livestock derived foods and balanced, diverse, holistic diets with consumption better aligned to dietary requirements and life stage (e.g. increase in women and children in first 1000 days; decrease in highly developed economies). - Context matters: Vulnerable communities will require more livestock-derived foods. In many resource-poor settings, availability, affordability and accessibility of safe, quality livestock-derived foods are challenges to be addressed. Procurement and social platforms promoting diverse diets and targeting both producers and consumers may be one vehicle. - Sourcing: Optimise sustainability & accounting for local resources & traditions - Explore, develop and encourage alternatives to livestock-derived foods in areas where they are not well-tolerated or produced. Actions to impact this topic include: - More robust information on nutrition and health outputs from the consumption of animal-sourced food and incentives to use this information for decisions, policy changes and education throughout societies. - Invest in improving understanding of the imbalances to better target solutions and actions. - Create greater awareness of the need for balance (in diets & sustainability), informing debates, and raising awareness of context in relation to livestock-derived foods. Better education/awareness to children who are in school now that will promote behaviour change from a younger age and can also include school food programs/meals that could impact both producers and consumers. - Better evidence can inform action by governments, retail, procurers (eg schools, hospitals), processers, livestock keepers. This should include research on the role of animal sourced foods in improving nutrition and its contribution to obesity (distinguishing between correlation vs causation). - Better metrics to help consumers make more balanced, sustainable, nutritious, healthy choices - Investigate better incentives to rebalance consumption, nutrition, health, sustainability, and welfare. Informing government policies related to subsidy programs. The success of such actions could be indicated through: - Debates will be more balanced and consensus on how balanced, diverse diets include sustainable and healthy animal-sourced foods will emerge. - Metrics: Report(s) from FAO on post-UNFSS specific actions will include those related to balanced, healthy consumption of livestock-derived foods. WHO targets related to nutrition, obesity, non-communicable diseases) will be accelerated through appropriate inclusion of livestock-derived foods. - Consumer-facing tools (e.g. Nutri-Score) and WHO recommendations will be used. - Research results and case studies provide critical information regarding obesity and livestock-derived foods; identifying solutions that result in positive outcomes for food, nutrition and biodiversity.236240243244248249250Discussion topic 3: Staying inside planetary natural and environmental boundaries and tackling the climate emergency: To what extent, and how, can changes to livestock systems benefit nature and ecosystems and help us adapt to or mitigate climate change – while also sustaining people’s livelihoods and their nutrition and health? The consensus position was that there are no simple solutions, but not all food systems are ‘broken’, in many cases positive changes are underway and should be highlighted. Changes in livestock systems can best be achieved by mobilizing diverse groups of stakeholders to a more positive common narrative, recognizing that incremental transitions, innovation, and continuous learning are needed. This includes: - Recognize the diversity of livestock systems and different roles they play in societies (e.g. the importance of ASF especially in LMICs compared to overconsumption in the Global North) and longer-term sustainability. Discourses that are polarised about livestock are not helpful because they miss the importance of diversity and the many emerging solutions. - The critical roles of farmers as part of the solution for changes requires addressing incentives (including transparency of reporting) for farmers to do things differently. This does not negate the importance of all actors, and the need for better partnerships between private and public sector, multi-stakeholder platforms, etc. - The right balance between livestock and nature will be found in different ways in different places - there’s no single global approach that works. The most striking difference is between global north and global south where, for example, per capita ASF consumption should generally decrease in the north and increase for many target populations in the south. There are also significant divisions between land-use types with some - rangelands particularly - better matching livestock production than any other agricultural product. While livestock production can have negative effects on nature and the environment, properly managed, it offers many benefits and advantages to land, soils and landscapes. These are in addition to its other nutrition, livelihoods and economic benefits. - Another area is livestock’s contribution to greenhouse gasses. There is a need to better understand its role in methane and the need for science-based evidence to inform policies and new approaches to support methane mitigation (e.g. feed additives, vaccines). Actions to impact this topic include: - Communication and knowledge sharing actions, such as peer-to-peer learning experience among farmers, knowledge sharing, exchange and transfer of best practices through global platforms. Communication with public, youth, schools using social media and other means. Better communication is also supported by more consistent terminology and metrics and by telling the livestock ‘story’ and the many vital ways it contributes to people’s lives and livelihoods and ecosystems. - Bridging diverging regional realities - need to view global issues - convergence of views and building understanding across different livestock systems. This can include matching animals to landscapes and land use as well as markets and consumers, promoting mixed crop-livestock systems that offer multiple benefits, enrich other assets such as soils, and contribute to circularity (thus minimising waste) in production systems and promoting carbon neural livestock production.236241243248249250251Discussion topic 4: Growing economic opportunities without compromising our sustainability goals: To what extent, and how, can changes in livestock keeping, livestock ownership or livestock as a business help advance equitable livelihoods and achieve healthier diets – without damaging our natural resources or leaving anyone behind? The consensus position was that livestock is extremely important in several parts of the world and especially so in some parts where it is the main source of livelihoods. - Nutritious diets and sustainable livelihoods in Africa (and some parts of Asia) cannot be achieved without livestock which are often a cornerstone of economies and rural livelihoods. There are clear regional differences in the way livestock are raised, produced and consumed. - Generalities do not help, rather nuances are required and livestock issues should not be siloed. - Improving the health and welfare of animals improves their economic value and reduces environment footprint. - Fairness throughout value-chains is needed, including incomes and costs. For some economies this means citizens being willing (and able) to pay more for quality livestock-derived foods. Consumer decision-making needs to be linked to its influence on food systems. - There are positive things happening across the livestock sector – genetics, precision-feeding, climate-smart agriculture; private sector engagement – methane management, all underpinned by sound science that needs to be contextually applied for solutions, policy and investment decisions. - In rural areas economic indicators can inform what is possible, leverage additional funding and government regulations to improve the value of livestock production and enhance local resilience – simple economic analysis doesn’t always bring this out. - Growing livelihoods and economic opportunities from livestock for individuals (men, women, youth) through to nations can look quite different in different settings. In LMICs, this may mean livestock production, elsewhere, waged employment is plentiful at the processing stage. Trade-offs must be considered, and incentives adjusted to take account of environmental as well as economic gains. Actions to impact this topic include: - Several other industries including tourism depend on livestock and agriculture and need to be considered. Don’t silo sectors, components of the value-chain or countries. - Livestock has received a lot of negative attention in the past but with the right investments can be transformed to be both economically viable and environmentally sustainable. - In some cases, it should be possible to take advantage of regional integration and diverse eco-systems, through a move to specialisation tailored to specific agro-zones (e.g. production of cattle in arid areas). - Focus on nature-positive solutions that do not require further conversion of lands. - Support is also needed across the value chain as this can help create jobs. All actors in the value chain must get their fair share Farmers need support for quality produce and access to markets. - Do a better job thinking through the hard trade-offs in livestock issues—figure out who pays, how and how much. Do not underestimate the challenges the sector needs to face. - Incorporate One Health approach into solutions, which may include guidelines for field agents, capacity building, creation of local or regional “One Health” associations, using an evaluation system adopted by everyone with common, multiple criteria.236242243244250Discussion topic 5: Building resilience to overcome food system vulnerabilities, shocks and stresses: To what extent, and how, can changes to livestock systems help us prepare for, withstand, and recover from natural disasters, conflicts or disease threats – without unintentionally increasing the risks that livestock contribute to these? The consensus position was that the global livestock narrative misses the nuance that reflects the diversity and heterogeneity in both production systems and agro-ecological regions. Therefore, any analysis must account for these differences. The narrative about consumption of livestock-derived foods needs to take account of the millions who do not have access to quality livestock-derived foods and for whom equitable, affordable access to healthy, quality livestock-derived foods should be promoted. Population and incomes are rising, which translates into an increase in the demand for animal protein which has important nutritional roles. This increase in demand can have effects on deforestation and generation of emissions. Solutions include sustainable production underpinned by appropriate financing to promote the adoption of suitable technologies. Resilience, risks and the role of livestock in circular systems were highlighted. Resilience: - Healthier animals reduce zoonotic risks, disease spread and contribute to healthy diets. Three billion people don't have access to healthy diets and good nutrition is key to people's resilience. In some cases, healthy sustainable diets means more plants and less animals - Small livestock (goats, sheep and chicken) can be used to build up resilience especially in natural disasters because of their quick multiplication. Livestock keeping plays an important role for those who can’t afford healthy nutrition. - To build resilience, we need nature friendly farming, use of robust breeds and diverse farming systems. Risks: - Need to value the benefits of livestock production and minimise climate change effects so that food production is not adversely impacted by climate change. - Some industrial level production systems rely on very limited livestock biodiversity. - Approaches for biosecurity measures and prudent, responsible use of antibiotics vary considerably across the world. - Risks, such as climate shocks and market volatility can impact differently on livestock production systems. All require tools to improve resilience capacity such as agricultural insurance. - The effect of shocks on the food system impacts on household resilience, whose incomes are affected by price changes. Circularity: - Across much of the world, livestock are essential elements to ensure the bio-circularity of different food production systems. - In some cases, regenerative livestock systems means fewer productive animals. Actions to impact this topic include: - Multi-stakeholder approaches, noting that time and effort are required to reach consensus. - Central leadership to bring different stakeholders together. Creation of a world body that moves the world towards a sustainable food production system. - Avoiding top down approaches that don't allow for local solutions. - Involve more farmers and work with farmers that are trailblazing regenerative food systems. - Improving sustainability and efficiency of the sector through new technologies which also requires adequate investment for the transition processes. - A more resilient, more productive, fairer livestock sector from the social point of view underpinned by the research and technology transfer processes. - Develop improved intensified livestock systems that focus on using existing resources more efficiently and do not require considerable external inputs but use natural ecosystems more efficiently. This includes balancing the use of new technologies with the best use of traditional technologies. The success of such actions could be indicated through: - Reductions in animal waste. - Reduced emissions from livestock farms. - Greater application of regenerative mixed farm systems.237238239240241242While there was general agreement among dialogue participants on the roles of the livestock and sustainable development, there was an observation made that the livestock sector is reluctant to tackle the hard issues when livestock is part of the problem – both production and consumption. All stakeholders are thus challenged to do a better job addressing the hard trade-offs in livestock issues—and to figure out who pays, how and how much. Many groups did not diverge but recognised the importance of seeking out and initiating conversations with those who do – to find better solutions. Participants acknowledged that there are many areas where views are divergent, partly related to the diversity of livestock systems going forward – contrasting for example, pastoralists, smallholders, intensive farming as well as divergence on the consumption of livestock-derived foods. There are also contrasting views in relation to environmental and human health externalities (e.g. AMR) as well as towards efficiency vs resilience (do these complement or antagonize one another?). Most of these divergent views arise because of differences between objectives for different regions (and wealth categories) in different parts of the world. For example, at present, in LMICs livestock play multiple roles, whereas in HICs the focus is much more on only the provision of food products. Recognizing this diversity of views of the roles of the livestock sector in future food systems, participants noted that it is necessary to share positive messages without being 'defensive' of livestock or failing to acknowledge where livestock sector harms must be addressed and mitigated. A critical area of divergence revolved around to what extent synthetic protein can be an alternative to reduce the pressure of livestock systems on resources. On the one hand, some consider that a broader offer of plant-based alternatives may be essential to be able to deal with the increase in demand. Others consider that there are factors that might make this inappropriate in certain contexts including cultural factors, access and knock-on impacts on livelihoods, environment, human health and so on. In general more and more nuanced information on plant-based alternatives in relation to multiple sustainability dimensions would help decision making and targeted solutions.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Livestockdialogue-final-agenda-.docxhttp://www.fao.org/webcast/home/en/item/5566/icode/http://www.fao.org/webcast/home/en/item/5567/icode/https://www.dropbox.com/s/c1etrw9ku64t17z/Namukolo2 - SD 480p.mov?dl=0

2021-05-21 15:22:29204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/15410/98

72

Yes

234238239241242246249Nairobi County is developing the Nairobi City County Food System Strategy. The process of drafting the strategy started in 2017 as part of the project called: “Developing Sustainable Food Systems for Urban Areas”, that was implemented jointly by FAO and the governments of the cities of Nairobi, Dhaka (Bangladesh) and Lima (Peru) (“NADHALI”). The strategic objective of the project was to enable more inclusive and efficient agricultural and food systems at local, national and international levels. The Nairobi City County Food Systems Strategy has the overall objective of attaining consistent food security for city residents while safeguarding the commercial interests of food industry entrepreneurs. Currently the draft strategy has been published for a public participation process (https://nairobi.go.ke/download/nairobi-city-county-food-system-strategy-fourth-draft/). The dialogue answered the question: can the Nairobi City County Food System Strategy achieve a future of food that is sustainable, equitable and secure for its urban community? The discussions was guided by the specific objectives of the strategy which included: • SO1: Increase in food production, • SO2: Stable food supply to the city with stable incomes for players, • SO3: Reduction of food losses • SO4: Good welfare of food consumers. Key Questions • Does the vision of the Nairobi City County Food System Strategy align with the UN goals for urban communities? • How can the strategies and actions in the Nairobi City County Food System Strategy better support this vision? • What additional ideas, solutions, partnerships and action plans can be adopted / introduced to realize the overall objectives of a sustainable urban food system? • How can the capacities and capabilities of Nairobi City County Government and local stakeholders be built to carry on, extend and identify opportunities to achieve an urban food system that is inclusive and resilient, including withstanding shocks such as the COVID 19? • Have the stakeholder analysis in the Nairobi City County Food System Strategy captured all the key food systems transformation stakeholders and their requirements / needs necessary to drive food systems transformation? • As a food systems stakeholder, how can your work contribute towards a resilient and inclusive Nairobi urban food system?235238239241242246249It was noted that Nairobi City County produces only approximately 20% of food consumed in Nairobi and therefore it is vulnerable to shocks and stresses to the food system such as the recent lockdown regulations associated with the COVID 19 pandemic which drove up the food prices and in many ways affected the access to nutritious food. There it was noted that the county should prioritise: • Intensifying food production within the city through incentivising small scale farmers to produce and providing the right assistance with access to finance, production technology and access to markets. In addition the opportunity of schools and institutions such as prisons, hospitals were identified as they have access to large parcels of land which could potentially be used as intensive production and education centers. • Taking stock of the food system in Nairobi county by identifying all related activities, stakeholders and initiatives as well as going further to ensure that the right linkages are made between different stakeholders as well as incentives directed towards those that require support to build capacity. • Zoning and territorial planning geared towards putting forward at the fore. This includes allocating and protecting spaces for agri-food related activities such as farm lands, markets, dams, etc. In addition ensuring the access of land to vulnerable urban populations such as women and urban poor. • Driving efficiency of the food supply chains through infrastructure and technology related develops, for example, transportation systems that are agri-food friendly (e.g. trains with cold storage and well developed road network system) and fast internet for online market places.236238239240241242243244246249Outcomes from Discussion Group 1: Does the vision of the Nairobi City County Food System Strategy align with the UN goals for urban communities? How can the strategies and actions in the Nairobi City County Food System Strategy better support this vision? • The strategy is recognised as the first step in offering a direction but resources should be directed towards implementation and monitoring and evaluation of the strategy. • There is alignment with SDG Goal 11 and 2, since it considers accessibility, affordability and nutritious safe food for all, including informal settlements. However, aspects of food insecurity among vulnerable populations and adaptation to climate change need to be priorities. We want to categorise the vulnerability of low income settlements into three. For the most vulnerable, we give food relief. For the moderate and low, we give food relief and enterprise support. • Actions around sustainability and environmental regeneration need to be strongly represented in the food strategy • It was noted that there are a number of bills and regulations mentioned in the strategy, these need to align in terms of priorities. Hence there is need for more policy incoherence across the different bills mentioned in the strategy • Beyond emphasizing food for all, the strategy needs specific actions that emphasise access to affordable healthy, safe and nutritious food for all especially the vulnerable populations beyond food aid. • We must include SDG 12 on consumption and production patterns. We cannot always depend on food coming from out of the city region and imported food. We should encourage urban and peri-urban production within the city and the strategy should strongly express through actions on hoe this will be promoted.236238239240241242243244246249Outcomes from Discussion Group 2: What additional ideas, solutions, partnerships and action plans can be adopted / introduced to realize the overall objectives of a sustainable urban food system? • Food safety action plan – this is key especially for guiding food handling, food certification as well as food retail. • Partnerships with urban planning and zoning departments- food production areas set aside; urban zoning to allow for farming. Architecture - city planners to mainstream open spaces for urban farming/kitchen gardens • Inclusion of consumers in the making of the policies, strategies, guidelines. Feedback loop. Street food vendors vs their enhancers who buy the foods. • Smallholder farmer - capacity building of urban farmers for food production in a sustainable manner. Dissemination of relevant technologies through our extension workers. • Inclusive food systems governance - participatory processes by as many stakeholders from the start to enhance ownership. Legitimising the role of platforms such as the Food Liaison Advisory Group (FLAG), which is a multi-stakeholder platform for food governance • Improve infrastructure, both physical and technological infrastructure, from farm lands to markets/consumers to reduce food loss, enhance waste reduction, with little/no food wasted as. For example there is an opportunity for the City to negotiate with upcoming Railway infrastructure for cold storage provision for transport of foods coming to the City. • Food waste management. Linkages with different farmers to make use of biodegradable waste236238239240241242243244246249Outcomes from Discussion Group 3: How can the capacities and capabilities of Nairobi City County Government and local stakeholders be built to carry on, extend and identify opportunities to achieve an urban food system that is inclusive and resilient, including withstanding shocks such as the COVID 19? • In depth contextual analysis and mapping of the food system to Identifying capacity gaps and focus system strengthening on these key areas ( both on the supply side and demand side) as well as creating linkages where they are required. Map existing urban capacities/ actors such as highlight the number of urban farmers and their needs to provide services specific to their needs. • Multilevel governance and coordination across departments, civil society actors, private sector actors, researchers. Importantly partner with researchers, innovators and Implement innovation informed by research • Zoning and territorial planning geared towards promoting the food system in urban areas through identifying areas that can be used for urban farming and encourage and support urban farmers with capacity and finances to farm and market their produce. • Some areas of focus for capacity building and strengthening could include: Environmentally friendly, climate smart agriculture, nutrition sensitive approaches (through institutions such as schools, hospitals, and prisons), shock responsive social protection, focus on short and efficient supply chains and local production. Targeted professional development efforts including succession plan into hiring and capacity building. (This would help with attrition and losing already existing capacities, and mentor new HR capacities ) • Climate Smart Agriculture o Extensive clean-up of rivers in Nairobi so water can be used for urban agriculture o Country should limit clean/drinking water use to agriculture and domestic uses and avoid ‘wastage’ for example don’t allow car washing companies to use drinking water o Encourage urban small business to diversity their income by running small farms or holdings rearing chickens/goats/sheep (helps with shocks like COVID) • Early warning systems: o County to act on Food Strategy’s proposed institutionalization of a food contingency plan with early warning and early action components o Continuous monitoring of the food chain from the farmers to the consumer (surveillance) so that the food chain can be evaluated from time to time and enhance sustainability • Shortening supply chain is key as well as ensuring that supply chains are efficient: Increasing capacities in local food production (strengthen short supply chains, urban food production, lower taxes) through: o Household level gardens, kitchen gardens, chickens and goats to diversity food system o County could provide more support with ground work policy implementation: e.g. extension services (support farmers: subsides for urban farmers) o Promote food aggregation for local consumption ( investors storage) o Promote urban planning and zoning to support local production236238239240241242243245246249Conclusions from Discussion Group 4: Have the stakeholder analysis in the Nairobi City County Food System Strategy captured all the key food systems transformation stakeholders and their requirements / needs necessary to drive food systems transformation? Which Stakeholders are key to achieving the strategy and what are their needs? • Actors at national government, county government, private actors and donors are key in providing financial and technical resources for improvement of infrastructure such as market infrastructure and installing warehouses and cold rooms in order to handle the produce with minimal loss and waste. Programs should benefit both formal and informal actors across the food system. In addition, Private Public Partnerships (PPP) are key in ensuring access to capital and other technologies. • Mobilise and involve major and micro food players such as the small/ medium traders, industries/ companies and supermarkets in the city which are key marketing and storage food points. This will also motivate producers due to ready market available for their produce. • Involve the financial institutions to finance food system actors’ dealings in the city. Also exploring innovative finance measures or ways of organisation such as Savings and Credit Co-operatives (SACCOs) to facilitate saving and access to loans especially for small scale farmers and informal actors across the food value chain) • Strengthen value addition and agro-processing dealers so as to minimize food loss and waste. This is through capacity building by national and local government, private consumers as well as • Women and children who are major handlers of food. Capacity building is crucial especially on issues of nutrition and food safety.237N/A

2021-05-21 15:27:19204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/9217/203

30016914368181124173325591422721813043102811572442

FEBA Annual Convention 2021 “For a sustainable future food system” was organised by the European Food Banks Federation in collaboration with Česka Federace Potravinovych Bank and took place online on 6-7 May 2021. FEBA recognised the urgency to take part in the UN Food System Summit for the utmost importance of sustained and meaningful actions at all levels to reach the respective 2030 Sustainable Developments Gaols. FEBA developed an ad hoc website, which was user-friendly and easy to access with the ultimate goal to make the event open to a broad public. The different sessions were broadcasted via YouTube and Facebook, and the YouTube channel was also embedded on the ad hoc website. Online meetings facilitate a wide dissemination, during and after the event, and FEBA tried to reach as many people as possible – especially Food Bankers in Europe and in the world and leading experts. Moreover, in order to engage as many people as possible, FEBA organised an interpretation system in English, Italian and Czech and throughout the 2 days of the event, a graphic facilitator designed the flow of the conference live. During the Working Tables (6 different groups), each participant had the possibility to present himself/herself, interact with the facilitators and work together thanks to a digital dashboard to list Working Tables’ recommendations to present in the restitution session. Moreover, in order to let participants think ‘out of the box’, before starting to work in the different Working Tables, participants engaged in creativity workshops. These group activities were designed to discover the characteristics and potential of divergent thinking: a creative mind is flexible and open to new knowledge, makes connections, adapts to unexpected events and is able to find new ways of solving problems, has more fun, is able to recognize, accepts and appreciates differences, sees failure as an opportunity to learn, embraces possibility and the unknown, anticipates events and develops unique and useful ideas.FEBA Annual Convention 2021 addressed an important theme: “For a sustainable future food system”. It was reminded that during these difficult FEBA members have reconnected with the significance of small and concrete gestures of attention particularly for those in need. For Food Bankers, the daily dedication to people consists in recovering, sorting, storing and redistributing food that could become waste. It emerged how this is the miracle of circular economy at work. That food, rather than be discarded is not only regaining its full nutritional value but becomes the testimony of human solidarity for charities and their beneficiaries in need. This is how Food Banks closes the gap between humanitarianism and humanism. The concern for each individual with a personalized response to his/her specific need is the bond between beneficiaries, charities, partners and Food Banks. FEBA organised the event to better explore the complexity of the food systems and their closely connection between each other where a systemic approach is required for a transformation. To do so, a multi-stakeholder inclusivity was at the core – both looking at the list of participants from different backgrounds and nationalities and the topics discussed. Engagement was a key aspect of the FEBA Annual Convention 2021 where participants brought their personal and professional experiences in the field to explore new ways and challenges for the future contributing to a vision, common objectives and final outcomes for the Food System Summit and its future resilience.FEBA Annual Convention 2021 “For a sustainable future food system” was organised in order to gather as many participants as possible from different backgrounds and nationalities to enrich the dialogue. It was therefore important to recognise the urgency of sustained and meaningful action at all levels to reach the 2030 SDGs underlying the direct impact on Food Banks and actions to be taken to tackle food loss and waste. It was clearly defined since the beginning the importance of this UN Food System Summit Independent Dialogue as contribution to the Food System Summit and to the elaboration of pathways to food system transformation where Food Banks are key actors. The declination of this key aspect was evident in the high-level panels discussion, as well as in the different Working Tables. All the participants recognised the complexity of the food systems and committed to work together in a systemic approach. FEBA informed the participants before the Dialogue, shared materials and the programme to allow everyone to participate and be involved. Moreover, during the conference FEBA gave the possibility to use the interpreting service in English, Italian and Czech and to always address questions and comments via different channels (functional email address, social media etc). Last but not least, FEBA decided to organise the 6 Working Tables on key topics for Food Banks in the food system transformation (data collection and digital transformation, corporate partnerships, communication & storytelling, young generation, volunteering and new boundaries for food redistribution) dedicated these spaces of discussion only for FEBA members and some external experts. This aspect was of fundamental importance to allow fruitful and straight to the point discussions.

Yes

234238239240242244246247248249250FEBA Annual Convention 2021 “For a sustainable future food system” was organised in collaboration with Česka Federace Potravinovych Bank and took place online on 6-7 May 2021. FEBA Annual Convention 2021 has been recognised as a UN Food Systems Independent Dialogue and wanted to offer opportunities for all participants to engage directly in proposing pathways towards sustainable food systems, exploring new ways of working together and encouraging collaborative actions. COVID-19 has placed the global economy under tremendous strain. While throwing many people into food insecurity overnight, this crisis has highlighted the importance of food security in Europe. Since their first establishment, FEBA members have daily worked facing the challenge not just to prevent food waste but also to ensure its safe delivery and redistribution to charities helping people in need. Adaptation to change is the nature of Food Banks. They have provided tangible responses in a challenging context, contributed to improving the efficiency of food business operators, increasing significantly and rapidly their operations, with an agile determination, a continuous process innovation, and a widespread coverage on the ground. FEBA Annual Convention 2021, as a UN Food System Independent Dialogue, had the primary goal to gather Food Banks, stakeholders, officials of European institutions and international organizations, researchers and professors from worldwide universities to be protagonist of the UN Food Systems Summit, as part of the Decade of Action to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In fact, the Summit will launch bold new actions to deliver progress on all 17 SDGs, each of which relies to some degree on healthier, more sustainable and equitable food systems. The discussions, both in plenary sessions and high-level panels and in the discussion groups (Working Tables) were structured around the 5 UN Food System Summit Actions Tracks. Themes, topics of discussion and key messages were not addressed as different siloes but with an integrated approach trying to underline the possible trade-offs with other tracks, identifying possible solutions to deliver wide-reaching benefits. In fact, key cross-cutting levers of change can draw on the expertise of actors actively participating to the FEBA UN Food System Summit Dialogue “For a sustainable future food system”. FEBA Annual Convention “For a sustainable future food system” has been an accelerator of new and innovative ideas also to give a strong contribution to the next International Day of Awareness of Food Loss and Waste (29 September 2021). Finally, 2021 marks the beginning of the programming period 2021-2027 with new EU strategies and policies, such as the European Pillar of Social Rights, the Next Generation EU, the REACT-EU initiative, the Farm to Fork Strategy, the European Social Fund Plus, and the Common Agricultural Policy. Solidarity and collaboration emerged as a way of coming of this pandemic crisis better, stronger and together. The support of public authorities, businesses, charities, volunteers, and citizens has proven that it is possible to grow through adversity. 2021 can be regarded as the foundation stone for a profound renewal of our food system, bringing it at the centre of the political agenda and going beyond the “business as usual” approach. Our food systems can overcome historical criticalities – crises, disruptions, fragmentation, interdependence, national self-sufficiency – by means of a massive digitalisation, by facilitating the dissemination of best practices, innovations and new technologies from farm to fork, and by ensuring that both profit and non-profit food business operators can understand the benefits of such transformation.235238239241242244246247248249250The starting point of all the discussions was to explore the role of Food Banks within the Food System transformation and the role of Food Banks in the context of the Farm to Fork Strategy. The COVID-19 crisis spot a light on the important role played by Food Banks in Europe contributing to food security in really complex conditions. Food Banks reacted very quickly to the increased demand for food aid and the challenge to recover and redistribute food surplus to those in need. During the crisis, the close cooperation with all the actors of the food supply chain – from farmers to food business operators helped to save precious food resources from being wasted. At the same time, the food system is transforming towards a more sustainable future. The questions addressed by the different speakers were what exactly it is necessary to transform and the reason why, and most importantly how. In fact, the food system transformation is a process of fundamental change in the structural, functional and relational aspects of the food system that leads to more equitable relationships and more benign patterns of interactions and outcomes. They key aspect is the key word “relationship” because the main target of the food system transformation is, indeed, provided by a set of relationships. FEBA Annual Convention 2021 “for a sustainable future food system” tried to identify the most important challenges for this transformation, recognising their complexity. Food systems are very complex entanglements of relations, some of them are visible, but many of them are hidden and they should be recognised in order to face this challenge. It emerged how food system transformation is a process of democratisation, a process that needs to blur the boundaries between the different actors, the public and the private sectors and the civil society. Food Bankers are very practical and concrete people, therefore the Annual Convention 2021 was the occasion to indicate some key aspects to move from the grand vision of the food system transformation to the practicalities of it. In fact, Food Bankers have been defined as “practitioner policy-makers”, together with the external experts and partners involved and the researchers. All these actors should be courageous and bold deciding a normative stance and the desired outcomes at the start of the process of this key transformation. Four pillars have been recognised in this respect: bringing together the social and the natural, creating or strengthening positive flows and interactions within and between food systems, making space for pluralism and connecting food with other public goods (health, well-being, the environment, the welfare system). In this context, there are some tangible and interrelates goals for food system transformation such as the generation of co-benefits, the strengthening of linkages, social inclusion and connectivity. In fact, food insecurities are indicative of underlying socio-economic and environmental problems that need to be addressed holistically. Connecting food with other complex systems and policy priorities is a key factor, both for the private and NGO sectors. Food Banks are important actors in this food system transformation where it is necessary to connect food with other important aspects and priorities in the governments arena, health, welfare, housing and transports. Food Banks can be protagonist of this transformation to be empowered and become active agents of change especially in overcoming the new liberal tendences to individualise food insecurity and to dump the responsibility of this problem to single individuals and the solution of the problems to civil society organisations and the volunteers working more on the symptoms than on the causes. Food Banks can become ‘community hubs’ closely connected to transformative initiatives going on at local level. Moreover, Food Banks play a vital role in diversifying the knowledge-base that is needed for food system transformation, being at the core of every process of democratization in the food system transformation. A key message from the FEBA Annual Convention 2021 is that it is essential to think systemically: all food business operators are pieces of a single picture representing the food systems. The European Food Banks Federation wants to accept this responsibility by engaging in concrete actions, contributing to the ongoing debate, and being part of the choices that will follow giving value to food and taste to the future.236238242243The Working Table 1 started from the experience FEBA had on the project of the Online Observatory of Food Donation started in 2020 being the only digital touchpoint where most of the information about Food Banks in Europe are condensed. In this context the Working Table’s discussion started with a question: what is the future of data collection and digital transformation for FEBA members and the development of digital tools in the Food Banks’ context? What are the main challenges in collecting and using data within Food Banks? - Resistance to change - New way of looking at data and digital transformation and have a new mindset - Understand which type of data we do need - Capability to involve charities in the data collection process Some challenges are more technical, while others more related to competences and culture, some others related to multi-stakeholder perspective that must be involved in the process. At the same time, Food Banks have a clear idea on how data can be used in the future to foster their activities: - Data that can engage more donors and stakeholders - Data as fundamental information to make good decisions Participants also worked together to identify hypothetical investments need to boost the data collection process and digitalization of FEBA members related to technology: software to collect, shape and share data in order to publicly share meaningful information. Participants also underlined the importance of creating a community of IT experts within the FEBA network who can work together to let all the Food Banks to improve their own digital transformation pathways. In this journey FEBA is considered a pivotal actor with a unique understanding of how important has been the first step made by FEBA and the Pilot Group of 8 members in 2020. The main goals for the future are to focus, have energy and the desire to work together to build a better infrastructure that can let Food Banks collect, share and take out meaningful information throughout data.236238242243246248250In this Working Table there was the chance to have both representatives from the private sector and FEBA members. The Working Table started with an exercise of associating words in relation to partnerships. It was found that the collaboration between Food Banks and the private sector is not only a matter of recovering and redistributing food but it goes beyond, it is a collaboration for the common good. The Working Table participants first discussed about what the Food Banks and private Companies give and get in this collaboration exploring the Food Banks’ views and the ones of the corporations. While collaborating with Food Banks Companies give food, technical support, long-term perspective, operational efficiency, donations and volunteers. On the other hand, a fruitful corporate partnership with Food Banks, let Companies get: customized service, marketing opportunities, feel with the public, eyes on the ground, extensive coverage, a jump into reality, rapid solutions, professionalism, and flexibility. While collaborating with Companies, Food Banks give: immediate impact, continuity, expertise, readiness to operate, reliability, and flexible way to go beyond profits. On the other hand, a fruitful corporate partnership with Companies, let Food Banks get: continuity, necessary support to survive, marketing opportunities, trust and continuity of the relations over time, food, and donations. Then participants discussed about what hinders a fruitful partnership. One of the first issue highlighted is that for Companies it is often difficult to combine business priorities and pressure with the values and the main goals of the Food Banks. On the other side, Food Banks suffer from the different perceptions, goals and visions on what is the common good. Participants then highlighted the common necessity to overcome obstacles created by different goals and visions. The last part of the discussion focused on how COVID-19 boosted corporate partnerships and the fact that this challenging period was an accelerator for corporate partnerships and the collaboration between the private sector and the Food Banks in Europe. How to keep this relationship over time for a post-Covid Europe? Both private actors and Food Banks must invest on trust, shared goals, legal agreements, a clear and frank communication, a more efficient coordination, long-term relations, raising local awareness, engage volunteers from the Companies, rely on Food Banks’ logistic ability and invest on skills.236238240242243244246249250The Working Group’s participants were a mix between Food Banks and external participants and this mix brought a great engagement and great insights that opened up very interesting discussions. The Working Table started describing the current context of COVID-19 that very much impacted the food redistribution organisations and the communities. Food Banks have been seen as front-line heroes of the pandemic, there are images all over the world of warehouses highlighting the passion and the commitment in supporting communities. Working Table’s discussion explored what has been the impact of COVID-19 on the Foodbanking Narrative and how Food Banks position themselves in the hearts and minds of the stakeholders such as partners, supporters, volunteers and the teams. There has been an awareness-driven around food waste and food insecurity but it is important to re-structure the narrative of who Food Banks are and what they do. Does the narrative in the media reflect the organisations where Food Bankers operate? Food Bankers can tell stories on ambition, passion, motivation, entrepreneurship and the impact Food Banks are having on the people and on the planet. The role of this workshop was to kick start the discussion whether there is a need to refresh the narrative and the position of the Food Banks and to do recommendations for FEBA. Food Banks are indeed seen as food package providers to feed the poor, to support charities, volunteers at the door of the supermarkets etc. But how Food Banks would like to be seen in the future? Food Banks are not the producers or the users – Food Banks are the dotted line that connect the needs. This connection of need is something really powerful to communicate. The bigger role of FEBA is to continue the discussion on this topics as an opportunity to look at branding and reposition ourselves in the hearts and minds of the stakeholders and looking at having a shared language. There is a new role for Food Banks as very important actors in the food system that can work towards a more sustainable future where it is important to build a common understanding. It is a very complex environment where build awareness is a key. The lack of understanding, where complexity is the enemy, can be damaging and limiting the future growth. Food Banks need to reframe the narrative to improve understanding and build broad-based support. Time is right to reframe and reshape Food Banks’ position and it is time to go!23623824124224324624724824926 participants from all over Europe, from France, many from Italy, Spain, Poland, Sweden, Netherlands, Germany and the UK participated in this Working Table. All of the participants had very different backgrounds, some from academic research and institutions, some from national Food Banks and others from corporations and companies. During the first part of the discussion, participants talked about how young people can contribute to a sustainable food system in innovative ways and what Food Banks can do to involve and communicate with young people. First of all, young people have a new mindset and attitude, they are increasingly aware of and care about issues such as sustainability, because they directly affect their future. A second key point was education. Educating young people about food and sustainability and involving them from an early age is key. For example, now often it’s the kids that teach the parents new behaviours. Another buzzword for how to involve young people in food banking activities was „empowerment and participation “. They want to be engaged and be part of the processes and the organizations. Hybrid ways of involvement for example combining volunteering, training and workshops etc. could be a key factor for Food Banks. Another interesting thought on how to engage young people was through gamification, this could be school or university contests and projects, or hackathons, because many young people have an entrepreneurial approach. The participants talked about what added value young people can bring to the Food Banks and how they imagine the future of Food Banks. Digital skills for instance and the appreciation for more horizontal and less hierarchical ways of working will be a great asset for the future. Also establishing and strengthening partnerships with corporations, for example by hosting events in relation to food banking topics and engage young professionals. It was also mentioned, that in the future, it will be crucial to empower and engage the beneficiaries more, to address the root causes and follow a holistic approach, so that Food Banks become more of a community hub. Also being eco-friendly not only due to saving food, but also looking at the means of transportation and packaging for instance. It was a very interesting and fruitful discussion and new insights, because of the different backgrounds. One key message that the participants want to share is that young people are the leaders of change and through Food Banks’ involvement young people can really be protagonist of the future of our countries, of Europe and the world.236238239241242246247249During the Working Table participants focused on 4 topics related to volunteering and the Food Banks. - Development of cross-sectoral partnerships at local level by analysing the changing relations between Food Banks and local authorities, NGOs and charities, academia, the not for profit sector and the for-profit sector to see how these stakeholders can work together to respond to communities’ needs. The COVID-19 crisis has shown the need to rethink strategic partnerships and to adapt the modus operandi of the different actors; - The employee volunteering or corporate volunteering as an alternative way to respond to the lack of volunteers, due to the health crisis. The pandemic has limited if not stopped the engagement of elderly volunteers, has brought young volunteers to Food Banks but then created a new gap when younger volunteers have returned to universities and schools. . The discussion stressed the need for employee volunteering to ensure a return in investment, as well as the need to ensure the balance between the effort required when engaging employee volunteers and valuing their wider social impact. Changing volunteers’ profiles: : Participants highlighted different and changing situations for younger and older volunteers, before, during and after COVID19 and they also discussed the possibility to explore the so called "tasks-based" volunteering offers, to reply to the changing nature of work and lifestyles rather than keeping to the traditional “role based” approach.; - Participants discussed the European Solidarity Corps Programme which enables young people to travel abroad to volunteer full time. Participants discussed whether this Programme could be a good solution for those Food Banks that struggle to have permanent human resources available. These are the main aspects to work on for Food Banks relying on volunteers to better match the offer of people across Europe who want to volunteer and Food Banks’ needs and how they can organise their volunteers in the most efficient and proper way.236238239240242243246248249250This Working Table focused on new boundaries for food redistribution. Participants started by reflecting on trends of the food systems following also the interesting discussions during the FEBA Annual Convention’s plenary sessions. The facilitator of the Working Table also presented an overview on COVID-19 and its huge impact on the consumers changes in terms of food waste, the sources of surplus food for Food Banks and the changes and learnings. Participants agreed that the Food System is changing and Food Banks have a pivotal role to play in contributing to a more sustainable food future. Food Banks feel that it isn’t very much recognised and the environment where they are operating. The Working Tables started to list some of the challenges Food Banks are facing especially in terms of redistribution of food and the difficulty to connect with the network of donors. Another important challenge for Food Banks is to change the sources of food and working on the optimization of the process. Participants discussed the challenge to concentrate on a balanced and diversified diet especially to look for new sources of food concentrating also on fresh and perishable products. In this context, technology can be a great boost also from a logistical point of view and even tough FEBA is doing a great work on digital transformation and data collection, FEBA members need a lot of resources and capacity building for innovation and technology. The discussion also focused on the new poor and the challenges and stigma associated with accessing food. Moreover, participants discussed the need to connect producers and the availabilities of food at the farm level but the lack of economic incentives stop the process of bringing producers on board. Participants also discussed on the need to invest on Food Banks also to position themselves in a new light to receive the support of policies and governments, as innovative partners that contribute to solve a huge challenge such as food waste. Food Banks within the Food System play a crucial role in connecting the different actors. Food Banks are like hubs that know the charities’ needs, the sources of food, where the food surplus is and they make all the different pieces of the puzzle come together to get this food where is needed. Participants also discussed about the idea of having new technological model collaborating with start-ups to reinforce the network. FEBA is a big network with a lot of expertise and knowledge and these start-ups can support the developing of new models for logistic, to extend the life of products and providing new ways of accessing food. The working table listed 3 recommendations for FEBA: 1. Need of a continuous work at policy level with the EU and International institutions and also at national level underlining Food Banks’ importance in the food system transformation and the role they had during the crisis to have also a stronger voice with the private sectors and the food producers. 2. Need to work collectively to engage businesses and develop partnerships. FEBA is an umbrella organisation and can open doors that probably an individual organisation cannot. Therefore, it is crucial to keep on with the dialogue between the FEBA network. 3. Establish a FEBA Partnerships Working Group to support connection between Food Banks and all the external actors involved in this processes and share best practices on new models of food redistribution and the capacity building that Food Banks need.237238239241242243244246247248249250During the FEBA Annual Convention 2021 “For a sustainable future food system” some speakers explored the needs for a food system transformation and the role played by food waste prevention. In fact, there is an increasing agreement that the food system currently in place is no longer sustainable. A first hint of this assumption is the huge quantity of food that is wasted or lost throughout the food supply chain (8% of GHG emissions, ¼ of the water used in agriculture is wasted, massive use of lands and deforestation etc.). Moreover, the containment measures during the COVID-19 pandemic have drastically impacted the essential flow of food from farms and producers to consumers. The food supply chain is broken and needs to be changed: following the transition from a linear to a circular economy, it is now needed to use this momentum as an opportunity to re-design and move to a food system model with future resilience. On the other side the problem of food insecurity in Europe is growing with millions of people in precarious situations and in need. Moreover, there is a climate emergency and many analyses declared that governments around the world will not meet the Paris Agreement’s targets without tackling food loss and waste. Therefore, it is evident how food loss and waste prevention is an integral part of the food system transformation. During the FEBA Annual Convention 2021 “For a sustainable future food system” some game-changer aspects were identified in this regard starting from the interconnectivity of this process. What are the key aspects that need to be transformed within the food system? Everything it is interconnected and to face a problem it is necessary to look at the entire picture with all the interconnectivities. Regarding the food loss and waste, it is fundamental to look at the framework of public and private actors and the role played by governments, businesses and civil society organisations. These actors should have a better understanding and a more mature approach to think about accountability and processes across that systems. The first game changer is about the private-public partnerships and the links between governments and businesses that work in the food supply chain to adopt all the measures necessary to get the targets. In this relation, the European Union is working to build a solid framework to facilitate the cooperation and coordination between the stakeholders, the public authorities and the civil society organisations such as the Food Banks. Another crucial issue to look at to transform the food system is the level of food waste at household consumption and the consumers’ education and the involvement of grass-roots organisations as Food Banks in this movement for change. Another important point is work to close the loop of food waste and to put in place the miracle of circular economy where Food Banks play a crucial role to redistribute food for human consumption. During the conference was highlighted in fact the central role Food Banks have to address all these issues in the food system transformation. In this context, one of the main challenge is the farmer’s engagement by businesses to reduce food loss and waste and getting governments to prioritise this issue on the different agendas. Most of the countries and governments are addressing the Paris Agreement’s targets but without mentioning the importance to tackle food loss and waste. Therefore, raising awareness it is really important but to really act towards these objectives actors need funding – to have proper storages, good infrastructures, know-how etc. COVID-19 demonstrated the fragility of the food system where the slogan ‘build back better’ emerged illustrating the need for change. This situation forced the Food Banks to emerge demonstrating the fundamental contribution for the food system’s resilience and to support the most needed in our societies. In this context, the support to Food Banks should be put in the agendas, for the role that they can play globally. COVID-19 has given visibility that pre-existing problems and demonstrated how broken the food system is. In this framework, the situation gave visibility to the Food Banks that very quickly adapted to the situation. Therefore, it is the time for Food Banks to start seeing themselves integral and active parts of the food system transformation and policy makers must looking at Food Banks with the same eyes as well.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/FEBA_2021_01_Opening.pnghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/FEBA_2021_02_Panel.pnghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/FEBA_2021_03_Panel.pnghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/FEBA_2021_04_Panel-CZ.pnghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/FEBA_2021_Day_2_Creativity-WorkshopWTs-restitution.pnghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/FEBA_2021_Day_2_International-Panel.pnghttps://annualconvention.eurofoodbank.org/

2021-05-21 15:36:41204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/7868/203

5910202093227254230410221142822155

The World Union of Wholesale Markets held four independent dialogues, highlighting the role of wholesale markets as a key player in the food system. Through regional sessions held across Latin America, Asia, Europe and Africa, the dialogues showcased rich and diverse realities thus, achieving a significant level of complexity, relevance, and collective reflection about food systems throughout the world. All participants were aware of the Principles and asked to review them in the official attendance sheet.Overall, it reflected each of the Principles of Engagement through its purposeful approach to addressing the SDGs with a focus on the pivotal role of the food sector together with wholesale markets, especially amid ever-evolving regional contexts and consumption trends, and recovery strategies for the Covid-19 crisis. Its multi-stakeholder and cross-sectoral approach to discussions ensured that perspectives were inclusive and insights were gained from a representative and diverse sample of the population, ranging from academia, international organizations, NGOs, markets, and other food actors.The Principles of Engagement are an essential tool for making dialogues a success, especially in providing guidance and ensuring discussions yield holistic and inclusive outcomes. It is necessary to also reflect on these principles and understand how to best adapt them based on contexts of participants. For example, in complementing the work of others and building trust, it is important to use existing knowledge of regional specificities or local trends to shape approaches. It must also serve as a reminder of the collaborative and dynamic nature of the desired discussions.

Yes

234238239242244246248249This dialogue series focuses on the role of Wholesale Markets in shaping a sustainable food system and its relationship to other stakeholders, including local authorities, smallholder farmers, and logisticians, among others. The four dialogues focused on promoting nutritious diets and ensuring accessibility as important dimensions of food sustainability, as well as fostering smart logistics and urban planning towards making a significant contribution to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. The reduction of food waste, was also explored alongside a recognition of the essential role wholesale markers play in this pursuit. The discussion on these topics contributed to development of effective strategies and sharing of best practices in line with addressing contemporary challenges including evolving consumption trends, urbanization, rapid population growth, climate change, disruptions in food systems and livelihoods, and the continuous pursuit of collective recovery and growth amid the Covid-19 crisis. This Dialogue was based on Action Track 1, 2 and 5 in which wholesale markets make significant contributions through their central position and targeted initiatives. Action track 1 aims to end hunger and all forms of malnutrition and reduce the incidence of non-communicable disease, thereby enabling all people to become well-nourished and healthy. Wholesale markets are the biggest fresh food suppliers in the world, and experts in the distribution of nutritious, fresh and non-processed food. They are key actors to ensure availability of fresh food, particularly in cities, which are often largely populated. Thus, wholesale markets must increase linkages and cooperation with tenants, farmers, and scientists to expand the availability of nutritious food. In fact, modern wholesale markets are well-known for traceability measures to ensure food safety. This practice must be promoted for the long run while infrastructures and protocols must be adapted and implemented in line with it. In light of this, markets need to continuously safeguard the highest level of sanitation, hygiene, and handling of food. Thus, investments should aim to upgrade existing infrastructures and establish new modern wholesale markets to ensure that all cities benefit from a consistent supply of nutritious fresh food. Action track 2 aims to build consumer demand for sustainably produced food, strengthen local value chains, improve nutrition, and promote the efficient use and recycling of food resources, especially in aid of the most vulnerable. To build this demand for sustainably produced food, wholesale markets must continue to promote the benefits and implementation of sustainable production methods through knowledge-sharing, capacity-building, and advocacy among food actors especially the producers, markets, and consumers. In addition, they must strengthen local value chains, increase recycling, and transition to the use of non-polluting energy resources. In fact, in shifting to more sustainable consumption patterns, wholesale markets are examining solutions such as promoting food waste reduction and distribution of food surplus that makes nutritious food accessible to the vulnerable populations. Moreover, further action concerning e-commerce and last-mile-logistics are needed to understand how these tools can be optimized by wholesale markets and help facilitate the supply of nutritious fresh food. Action track 5 aims to ensure existence of sustainable food systems in areas that are prone to conflict or natural disasters. The strong and diversified supply channels that wholesale markets possess demonstrated significant levels of adaptability during crisis. In fact, amid the Covid-19 crisis, wholesale markets were resilient, showcasing flexibility, resourcefulness, and innovation in delivering supply of fresh food to citizens worldwide. Wholesale markets can further optimize their infrastructures and prepare for future supply chain disruptions (fe. due to disease outbreaks or effects of climate change). In addition, improved communications among wholesale markets worldwide will enhance sharing of best practices and increase resilience.235238239242244245246248249An emphasis was placed on the leadership role that European wholesale markets can play in transforming food systems given their role as linkage of all the major stakeholders of the fresh food chain (producers, logisticians, wholesalers, sellers, retail markets, municipalities, local and national authorities, food banks, etc.). Carolyn Steel, invited as a key speaker, brought up the crucial idea of the ‘urban paradox’: the fact that those of us who live in cities think of ourselves as urban, forgetting that most of our food and other resources come from elsewhere. Education to better food habits, connecting consumers with the raw product/impact of the production methods should be in this context a priority. People take cheap quality food for granted. This gives rise to another insight regarding separation between urban populations and rural environments. We must revisit our systems as the impacts of current practices in food production, distribution, and consumption are serious (such as climate change, deforestation, mass extinction, pollution, soil degradation, water depletion, and declining fish stocks). As Covid-19 highlights, there is an urgent need to move towards resilient food systems and wholesale markets, as fresh food hubs, have an important role to play to reconnect humans with healthy food. Another key action is to democratize the food system and promote richer and more diversified food ecosystems, by increasing the availability of healthy, sustainable food options. Governments should foster policies and actions that contribute to create a food environment that makes it easier to choose healthy and sustainable diets. Furthermore, in the first area of nutritious diets accessible to all, promotion of healthier diets and awareness-raising about the impact of diets on health and food system sustainability is put forward as important issues accompanied by several notable solutions. In fact, it cites the current lack of consumer awareness and education in this area as the key problem to address, noting the importance of awareness as well on fostering local, seasonal products, reconnecting the consumers with the raw products, etc. Moreover, in the second area of smart logistics and urban planning, a number of solutions were put forward including those highlighting investment in locations and infrastructures to facilitate access to fresh food in growing cities, developing better traceability tools standards along the value chain, and promoting the use of green energy as well as promoting other sources of clean energies. Lastly, in the third area of reducing food waste, solutions to address food waste should be developed at every level of the supply chain. This requires an integrated approach that tackles at each level the main problems which involves processes and support at both local and national levels. The topic of stakeholder involvement is also tackled in terms of the importance of engaging local authorities as well as promoting knowledge-sharing between European members of WUWM and all food sector stakeholders.236238239240242243244245246248249TOPIC: Nutritious Diets Accessible to All There is a lack of consumer awareness and education on the importance of healthy diets. Therefore, there is a need to promote healthier diets (e.g. starting in schools from an early age) and raise awareness about the impact of diets on health but also about the sustainability of the food systems (fostering local, seasonal products, reconnecting the consumers with the raw products, etc.). This can be done through a number of ways: First, encourage increased consumption of fruits and vegetables, wholegrain cereals, nuts and pulses, particularly locally-produced varieties. Second, promote more sustainably-produced food products/meals. It is important to create a food environment that makes it easier to choose healthy and sustainable diets. In this sense, it is crucial to increase the availability and accessibility of healthy, sustainable food options by ensuring that citizens can easily access places where a diversity of healthy food is sold. Food governance can be a tool to avoid having places where mainly high processed or/and high in sugar food is sold. It is important to use investments in sustainable and resilient solutions in wholesale markets’ operations and supply chain management so they can prepare for disruptions and crises since they are among the most resilient actors ensuring continuous supply of healthy diets. Thus, it is crucial that these structures are prepared for future challenges. Third, create platforms and mechanisms that bring food system stakeholders together for discussion or shared implementation of effective solutions and compliance. For example, UN Food Systems Summit or shared mandatory due diligence can be implemented in the European Union for instance. Fourth, use public procurement for public facilities serving food (e.g., school canteens, hospitals) to support the intake of healthy diets and the promotion sustainable produce. Fifth, promote healthy cooking practices with local fruits and vegetables through local authorities, (inter)national institutions and NGOs in the food and health sector so that malnutrition is addressed. Sixth, address the issue of affordability, including through specific demonstrated nutritional needs for vulnerable groups and support diet-related health programs. Seventh, promote short supply chains, learning from present practices, for example, promotion of street markets that offer a wide variety of fresh products with a discounted price at the end of the market, facilitating access to healthier diets for lower income households. Another example is Florence wholesale market where leftover fresh food is sold for a lower price to the public twice a week. Food re-distribution and collaborations with food banks should also be fostered. There is a need to encourage transparency and traceability. It is important to provide transparent, voluntary product information to consumers (e.g. through digital means) and foster responsible food marketing and advertising practices by setting standards, certification and labels. Lastly, improve policy coherence and highlight the role of wholesale markets in ensuring virtuous linkages among actors to ensure fresh food availability. However, key challenges still remain. In fact, many of the innovations or promotions of healthy diets proposed requires an extra investment from different stakeholders, including producers, without any guarantee of having this effort rewarded. They not only have an economic interest in continuing with current practices but also these new implementations take time to be understood and accepted by them all.236238240242243244245246248249TOPIC: Smart logistics and urban planning As EU countries are evolving in order reduce their emissions and citizens are asking for more transparency and traceability several challenges where raised in order to ensure that smart logistics and urban planning are optimally implemented. First, enable better product traceability given that at present it is not easy to find out where food is coming from. For example, the UK government has a new law punishing entities that offer food that comes from illegal deforestation. However, there still remains more to be done to harmonize policies and legislation so there is more transparency. Second, foster trust and quality guarantee given that better information availability from producers, enables wholesale markets to become places of information collection and ensure quality and safety throughout the food supply chain. Third, wholesale markets need to be further included in urban planning. In fact, many urban planners do not have sufficient information on the importance of wholesale markets in food security and supplying sustainable healthy diets through their network of local food suppliers with sustainable practices Fourth, European small and medium sized companies need to be empowered to make use of new technologies that are driven by renewable energy (e.g. electric vehicles) and big companies should also be able to make investments. Fifth, city regulations must evolve and wholesale markets can work on improving last mile logistics solutions in order to comply with more efficient and eco-friendly urban distribution schemes. This would bring accessibility to a broader scale of actors, and reach city requirements such as emissions transports and optimizing logistics and congestions. Sixth, markets could develop the diversification of their facilities, with collection points in the cities to deconcentrate food logistics and distribution schedules. Seventh, investment must be considered in locations and infrastructures that facilitate access to fresh food in growing cities. For example, this includes investments for markets in the modern infrastructure, the consideration of market locations, inter-modal logistics, labels and certification, as well as securing sufficient supply from producers to consumers, including necessity and particularities of the different food sectors as well as the development of combined logistics lines (fruit/meat, etc.). Better traceability tools standards along the value chain must also be developed, for example, through “blockchain services” for tenants that can guarantee high standards in the supply process. Lastly, green energy must be promoted. For example, through the use of solar panels on roofs of markets and parking facilities, electric trucks and vehicles with associated infrastructure, the promotion of green energy for materials used by tenants, as well as by promoting other sources of clean energies (such as those coming from gas de-licensing), especially to drastically reduce emissions from refrigeration and freezing centers.236238239240244246248249250TOPIC: Reduction of food waste To promote more sustainable consumption patterns, food waste reduction is key. In fact, “Zero food waste” should be a vision, and the goal should be to reduce as much as possible food waste. Solutions to address food waste should be developed at every level of the supply chain. This requires an integrated approach that tackles at each level the main problems. In Europe one of the key issues is to reduce food waste at the level of consumption, both in home and out of home. We need to implement tools in each level. The priority should be to move away from food waste disposal. Food waste reduction should be included within the “quality management systems” of companies since at present, food loss and waste reduction is not defined as a priority. It is generally only focused on producing consistent and high-level quality of products. Current solutions must evaluate how to make it “a payoff” to reduce food waste for every actor in the chain. This necessitates being “wasteless” by design, or by finding value in the waste itself by redistributing, upcycling and recycling it as food for humans, food for animals, or bio-fuel and natural fertilizer. Ensuring the redistribution of food not sold, including through partnerships with food tanks, apps (such as too good to go) and civil society organizations, would make it available to people in need. Further, involving authorities at both local and national levels is also critical alongside developing ‘enablers’ to donate. For instance, it is important to foster innovative “food waste legislation” whereby products at the end of “shelf life” which can still be consumed must undergo a change in the label to “better before” and not “last day life” to facilitate its donation. More significantly, the importance of sharing experience and knowledge between all European members of WUWM and universities, professors, scientists and other professionals will also help to improve and implement shared guidelines and conclude agreements with social organizations (e.g. food banks) for the improvement of food systems in the European region and worldwide.

2021-05-21 15:37:28204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/13853/203

531120148302324241541714414415212462

The World Union of Wholesale Markets held four independent dialogues, highlighting the role of wholesale markets as a key player in the food system. Through regional sessions held across Latin America, Asia, Europe and Africa, the dialogues showcased rich and diverse realities thus, achieving a significant level of complexity, relevance, and collective reflection about food systems throughout the world. All participants were aware of the Principles and asked to review them in the official attendance sheet.Overall, it reflected each of the Principles of Engagement through its purposeful approach to addressing the SDGs with a focus on the pivotal role of the food sector together with wholesale markets, especially amid ever-evolving regional contexts and consumption trends, and recovery strategies for the Covid-19 crisis. Its multi-stakeholder and cross-sectoral approach to discussions ensured that perspectives were inclusive and insights were gained from a representative and diverse sample of the population, ranging from academia, international organizations, NGOs, markets, and other food actors.The Principles of Engagement are an essential tool for making dialogues a success, especially in providing guidance and ensuring discussions yield holistic and inclusive outcomes. It is necessary to also reflect on these principles and understand how to best adapt them based on contexts of participants. For example, in complementing the work of others and building trust, it is important to use existing knowledge of regional specificities or local trends to shape approaches. It must also serve as a reminder of the collaborative and dynamic nature of the desired discussions.

Yes

234238239242244246248249This dialogue series focuses on the role of Wholesale Markets in shaping a sustainable food system and its relationship to other stakeholders, including local authorities, smallholder farmers, and logisticians, among others. The four dialogues focused on promoting nutritious diets and ensuring accessibility as important dimensions of food sustainability, as well as fostering smart logistics and urban planning towards making a significant contribution to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. The reduction of food waste, was also explored alongside a recognition of the essential role wholesale markers play in this pursuit. The discussion on these topics contributed to development of effective strategies and sharing of best practices in line with addressing contemporary challenges including evolving consumption trends, urbanization, rapid population growth, climate change, disruptions in food systems and livelihoods, and the continuous pursuit of collective recovery and growth amid the Covid-19 crisis. This Dialogue was based on Action Track 1, 2 and 5 in which wholesale markets make significant contributions through their central position and targeted initiatives. Action track 1 aims to end hunger and all forms of malnutrition and reduce the incidence of non-communicable disease, thereby enabling all people to become well-nourished and healthy. Wholesale markets are the biggest fresh food suppliers in the world, and experts in the distribution of nutritious, fresh and non-processed food. They are key actors to ensure availability of fresh food, particularly in cities, which are often largely populated. Thus, wholesale markets must increase linkages and cooperation with tenants, farmers, and scientists to expand the availability of nutritious food. In fact, modern wholesale markets are well-known for traceability measures to ensure food safety. This practice must be promoted for the long run while infrastructures and protocols must be adapted and implemented in line with it. In light of this, markets need to continuously safeguard the highest level of sanitation, hygiene, and handling of food. Thus, investments should aim to upgrade existing infrastructures and establish new modern wholesale markets to ensure that all cities benefit from a consistent supply of nutritious fresh food. Action track 2 aims to build consumer demand for sustainably produced food, strengthen local value chains, improve nutrition, and promote the efficient use and recycling of food resources, especially in aid of the most vulnerable. To build this demand for sustainably produced food, wholesale markets must continue to promote the benefits and implementation of sustainable production methods through knowledge-sharing, capacity-building, and advocacy among food actors especially the producers, markets, and consumers. In addition, they must strengthen local value chains, increase recycling, and transition to the use of non-polluting energy resources. In fact, in shifting to more sustainable consumption patterns, wholesale markets are examining solutions such as promoting food waste reduction and distribution of food surplus that makes nutritious food accessible to the vulnerable populations. Moreover, further action concerning e-commerce and last-mile-logistics are needed to understand how these tools can be optimized by wholesale markets and help facilitate the supply of nutritious fresh food. Action track 5 aims to ensure existence of sustainable food systems in areas that are prone to conflict or natural disasters. The strong and diversified supply channels that wholesale markets possess demonstrated significant levels of adaptability during crisis. In fact, amid the Covid-19 crisis, wholesale markets were resilient, showcasing flexibility, resourcefulness, and innovation in delivering supply of fresh food to citizens worldwide. Wholesale markets can further optimize their infrastructures and prepare for future supply chain disruptions (fe. due to disease outbreaks or effects of climate change). In addition, improved communications among wholesale markets worldwide will enhance sharing of best practices and increase resilience.235238239240242243244245246248249Food security remains a key issue in Africa, especially in the Sub-Saharan regions. This is compounded by climate change, demography, and persisting poverty. The development of a strong and structured ecosystem of fresh food actors that can ensure availability of produce on a regular basis is key to achieve these goals. Agricultural wholesale markets, as fresh food trade and logistical hubs with the capacity to structure the whole fresh-food chain, will be crucial to ensure supply and to promote accessibility to healthy diets. Particularly in the context of rapid urbanization. In this sense, it was noted that governments and local municipalities need to reinforce their capacity in food governance, urban planning, and upgrade accordingly all the basic infrastructure needed to ensure food security. This means upgrading their markets systems -including wholesale and street markets-, securing roads connections between agricultural areas/cities, and improving water facilities and access to regular electricity. It is important to shift from a sectorial approach to a systemic one. By supporting cities and local governments, a systemic approach can be progressively built, connecting markets to other food systems components. The African food sector's main challenges include: ensuring access to nutritious food, food safety, food waste management and understanding that food security and nutritional objectives need to be addressed in connection with environmental and social objectives as well as rural and urban sustainability.236238239242244245246248249TOPIC: Healthy Diets Accessible to All / Linking Rural and Urban Panelists discussed how to foster nutritious diet for all and the linkages and future opportunities for smallholder/producers and urban markets in Africa. Markets are crucial players for ensuring access to healthy diets as they are not only providing the access but also a social platform gathering most communities. In addition, they empower women that are often the vendors. Africa accounted for 40% of the world’s stunted children, mostly located in South of the Sahara in 2019 (SOFI Report 2020). To ensure food security as a leverage for access of markets, different pillars have to be approached: availability, access, stability, agency and sustainability. Therefore, governance has a very important role to play. Policies impact the role of accessibility to food and they need to be in line with healthy standards. Policies need to promote affordable healthy diets and authorities should have more food governance capacity-building to be able to think and plan healthy regular supply of food for the next 10 years in their country. Local municipalities are important to making sure open fresh food air markets can thrive and be maintained. This has to be accompanied by better linkages between farmers and wholesale markets, as they are important assets to ensure resilient systems throughout Africa. This can be achieved through better roads, online platforms, and improved logistics. Nowadays coordination among actors is lacking which results to food losses and waste and need to be tackling urgently. It was proposed during the discussion to boost strategies of circular economy, by working hand in hand with local organizations, and by enabling legal frameworks to be developed. Furthermore, because of its socio-economic implications, it is important to foster the promotion of traditional diets and local gastronomy, that include a lot of plant-based nutritious ingredients. This can also provide more jobs for local producers. Many rural areas depend on urban markets to sell produce. Hygiene and food transportation are critical challenge in the region. Participants agreed that the promotion of short food chains with fresh local products is key, as well as to foster the linkages and future opportunities between rural producers and urban markets. Technology, apps/online platforms could be used to link and build trust and transparency between rural areas, wholesale market tenants, and regional and international stakeholders and should be further promoted across Africa.236238239241242243245246248249251TOPIC: Improving the Role of Local Authorities in Governing Food Markets / Enhancing Logistics Panelists during this session discussed how to improve the role of local authorities in governing food markets and access to food markets both by consumer and producer and enhancing fresh food logistics to tackle issues as efficiency, accessibility and food waste. They came up with ideas such as empowering local authorities/reinforcing capacity building in food governance; tackling the lack of coordination among actors; fostering collaboration with universities/experts; reinforcing/investing in food logistics and finally ensuring participatory and inclusive food system in Africa. Because local governments can contribute to stable food supply and the reduction of food loss, there is a need to build more capacity-building to local municipalities, by helping them to scope the food system through assessments, in cities where is a lack of functionalities due to absence of storage, distribution and production capacities. It is important to raise awareness, provide education and collaboration. Indeed, governments are concerned about providing food to their population without knowing the importance of nutritious food. Then, panelists highlighted the need to create multi-stakeholder platforms for the fresh food sector where it is possible to communicate, exchange needs, and information valuable for all. There is an absence of guidance today. In the coming years, it is crucial to introduce a shared approach, coming along with a pre-discussed agenda with local authorities, relevant stakeholders and international development agencies. A first step could be an open discussion gathering all involved actors. This implies to make the system more participatory, inclusive by integrating small actors, who can share their experience but also by fostering collaboration with universities and experts. Such collaboration will allow to have more data and therefore to develop more efficient policies. Assessments will help municipalities to understand local realities and needs (Need to have a clear picture of quantity, quality and seasonality or products, and of number of trucks circulating). Finally, it was proposed to reinforce food logistics, as these latter are one of the main “pain points” in Africa. There is a need to invest in adequate infrastructure as distribution channels of fresh produce. To be able to feed a growing and more urbanized population, there is an urgent need to build fresh food-platforms to help to structure the sector. Investments in roads that can ensure the transportation of food to cities in a regular basis are critical. Cold chain along the chain is also an issue that must be addressed (transportation and after cold storage) for this it is important to secure regular access to electricity. Technology solutions should be promoted.

2021-05-21 15:38:37204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/7976/203

56912201538184232741022221042225342

The World Union of Wholesale Markets held four independent dialogues, highlighting the role of wholesale markets as a key player in the food system. Through regional sessions held across Latin America, Asia, Europe and Africa, the dialogues showcased rich and diverse realities thus, achieving a significant level of complexity, relevance, and collective reflection about food systems throughout the world. All participants were aware of the Principles and asked to review them in the official attendance sheet.Overall, it reflected each of the Principles of Engagement through its purposeful approach to addressing the SDGs with a focus on the pivotal role of the food sector together with wholesale markets, especially amid ever-evolving regional contexts and consumption trends, and recovery strategies for the Covid-19 crisis. Its multi-stakeholder and cross-sectoral approach to discussions ensured that perspectives were inclusive and insights were gained from a representative and diverse sample of the population, ranging from academia, international organizations, NGOs, markets, and other food actors.The Principles of Engagement are an essential tool for making dialogues a success, especially in providing guidance and ensuring discussions yield holistic and inclusive outcomes. It is necessary to also reflect on these principles and understand how to best adapt them based on contexts of participants. For example, in complementing the work of others and building trust, it is important to use existing knowledge of regional specificities or local trends to shape approaches. It must also serve as a reminder of the collaborative and dynamic nature of the desired discussions.

Yes

234238239242244246248249This dialogue series focuses on the role of Wholesale Markets in shaping a sustainable food system and its relationship to other stakeholders, including local authorities, smallholder farmers, and logisticians, among others. The four dialogues focused on promoting nutritious diets and ensuring accessibility as important dimensions of food sustainability, as well as fostering smart logistics and urban planning towards making a significant contribution to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. The reduction of food waste, was also explored alongside a recognition of the essential role wholesale markers play in this pursuit. The discussion on these topics contributed to development of effective strategies and sharing of best practices in line with addressing contemporary challenges including evolving consumption trends, urbanization, rapid population growth, climate change, disruptions in food systems and livelihoods, and the continuous pursuit of collective recovery and growth amid the Covid-19 crisis. This Dialogue was based on Action Track 1, 2 and 5 in which wholesale markets make significant contributions through their central position and targeted initiatives. Action track 1 aims to end hunger and all forms of malnutrition and reduce the incidence of non-communicable disease, thereby enabling all people to become well-nourished and healthy. Wholesale markets are the biggest fresh food suppliers in the world, and experts in the distribution of nutritious, fresh and non-processed food. They are key actors to ensure availability of fresh food, particularly in cities, which are often largely populated. Thus, wholesale markets must increase linkages and cooperation with tenants, farmers, and scientists to expand the availability of nutritious food. In fact, modern wholesale markets are well-known for traceability measures to ensure food safety. This practice must be promoted for the long run while infrastructures and protocols must be adapted and implemented in line with it. In light of this, markets need to continuously safeguard the highest level of sanitation, hygiene, and handling of food. Thus, investments should aim to upgrade existing infrastructures and establish new modern wholesale markets to ensure that all cities benefit from a consistent supply of nutritious fresh food. Action track 2 aims to build consumer demand for sustainably produced food, strengthen local value chains, improve nutrition, and promote the efficient use and recycling of food resources, especially in aid of the most vulnerable. To build this demand for sustainably produced food, wholesale markets must continue to promote the benefits and implementation of sustainable production methods through knowledge-sharing, capacity-building, and advocacy among food actors especially the producers, markets, and consumers. In addition, they must strengthen local value chains, increase recycling, and transition to the use of non-polluting energy resources. In fact, in shifting to more sustainable consumption patterns, wholesale markets are examining solutions such as promoting food waste reduction and distribution of food surplus that makes nutritious food accessible to the vulnerable populations. Moreover, further action concerning e-commerce and last-mile-logistics are needed to understand how these tools can be optimized by wholesale markets and help facilitate the supply of nutritious fresh food. Action track 5 aims to ensure existence of sustainable food systems in areas that are prone to conflict or natural disasters. The strong and diversified supply channels that wholesale markets possess demonstrated significant levels of adaptability during crisis. In fact, amid the Covid-19 crisis, wholesale markets were resilient, showcasing flexibility, resourcefulness, and innovation in delivering supply of fresh food to citizens worldwide. Wholesale markets can further optimize their infrastructures and prepare for future supply chain disruptions (fe. due to disease outbreaks or effects of climate change). In addition, improved communications among wholesale markets worldwide will enhance sharing of best practices and increase resilience.235238239242244246248249Feeding citizens with healthy, accessible and safe food will be a major challenge for the most populated continent of the world. Wholesale markets occupy a central role amid rapidly growing urban cities in the Asian region, ensuring a solid supply chain, and fostering fresh food distribution to overcome associated challenges and supply disruptions. Thus, they should be provided with necessary support and frameworks to complement their knowledge and capacity to continuously supply fresh quality and accessible food to megacities. This also includes the establishment of an inclusive ecosystem across diverse food systems stakeholders in Asia to collectively tackle pressing contemporary challenges such as climate change and the adverse health and economical effects of future pandemics. Furthermore, in the first area of nutritious diets accessible to all, it was noted that transportation, cold chains, and the quality of packaging need to be improved to ensure better food security. Improved education and awareness-raising activities on the health benefits of nutritious and fresh diets is also needed to combat increasing trends in the consumption of processed food. However, beyond this knowledge-based approach to addressing issues, there is a need to upgrade food infrastructures supporting cold chain, food safety and logistics through investments and technology, especially in fostering digital transformations of the fresh food supply chain. Moreover, in the area of smart logistics and urban planning, the importance of food governance and its coherence is highlighted, having among the propositions, a medium-term plan for fresh food availability and improving the proximity of wholesale markets to all stakeholders. This involves the need to strengthen existing linkages between stakeholders or establish new ones, for example, through blockchain technology and by improving last mile logistics. The role of capacity building among farmers is also put forward as the region counts with a lot of small-medium size producers. Lastly, in terms of reducing food waste, the need to improve not only the services within wholesale markets but also the whole Asian food chain was highlighted relating to reinforcement of roads, supply chain system, and collaborating with farmers to improve handling, packaging, and prevent post-harvest loss. This initiative must be complemented by better tracking systems in Asia, especially concerning its transportation periods and coherent policy that facilitates perishable goods rapid transportation within a country. It is increasingly important to ensure that wholesale markets have access to collective food waste management systems to address food waste with the example of organic waste as fertilizers and biofuels through collaborations with startups or organizations specialized in this area. The overall aim is always to promote best practices in the Asian region.236238239245246248TOPIC: Nutritious Diets Accessible to All The rapidly growing population in Asia increases the importance of food security and access to healthy diets for all. To better ensure food security in the region, several points need to be improved, including transportation, cold chains, and the quality of packaging. In some countries, there is the risk of increased intake of processed food. Therefore, improved education and raising awareness on the health benefits of nutritious and fresh diets is key. The need to promote widespread diverse "foodscapes”, cities should ensure that their citizens are in close proximity to a diverse availability of food commerce. Wholesale markets should promote this ideal and be empowered to supply all communities with fresh food. Food infrastructures need to be upgraded through investments and technology (cold chain, food safety, logistics). Fostering digital transformations of the fresh food supply chain to ensure better price, improved access to healthy quality diets, and for better connections between producers, markets, and consumers (for example, by connecting farmers’ groups to electronic national markets where machines check food quality, develop e-commerce platforms, etc.). Actors pointed out the need to strengthen local value chains: For example with the involvement of wholesale markets in territorial food systems (markets concentrating agricultural supply and enabling farmers to sell their produce in convenient volumes) and the necessity to promote a broaden integration with the urban retail network not only in fruits & vegetables but also in meats, fish & seafood and dairy products. The Asian region needs to evolve practices in order to ensure the highest level of sanitation, hygiene, and handling of foods. This could be done through consults, workshops, guidelines, and improved sector communications. In this regard wholesale markets can stay up-to-date with the latest best practices on sanitation, hygiene, and handling of foods. They can implement these practices and continue to be sustainable places of excellence in the food system. They can commit together to common guidelines.236238240244245246248250TOPIC: Smart logistics and urban planning In the area of urban planning, it is essential to have a coherent food governance that includes a reflection on how to secure in the medium-term – 20 years- fresh food availability and identifying the fresh food actors that can do this as to increase the ability to supply growing Asian populations. For instance, governments should plan where to develop wholesale markets, positioning them in such a way that their reach and connections are extensive in the best way possible. Food security can be improved through farming in peri-urban areas with systems as central to a holistic approach to proximity, logistics, and planning. Meanwhile, innovation and advancement are also key. For example, to improve the linkages, efficiency, and transparency between markets, producers, and consumers, digital innovations need to be supported. An example is blockchain technology which can help ensure safe, timely, low-cost, and good quality food through proper traceability. There must also be support provided for short-circuits alongside the fostering of local supply. Another example is the Market Information Systems which must be improved with more multi-stakeholder considerations (e.g. transport, stakeholder consultations, etc.) to enhance the efficiency in disseminating information to traders and farmers and in addressing late or not very useful information. Meanwhile, better recycling, green energy usage, and improved last mile logistics are also identified as critical points moving forward. In Asia, as there are many small farmers, there is a need to strengthen capacity building efforts to help them comply with better standards. In this context, digital tools and innovations is an option and should be financed not to leave anyone behind. It is important to evaluate the price of technologies applied across contexts and the accompanying need for good internet connection. If these tools are not accessible, it may exclude small scale traders and farmers, making food systems less inclusive. Blockchain can be adapted to large scale farming or crop farmers’ cooperatives, and innovations in food traceability can be achieved in a less demanding way (e.g. labeling of food and farmer’s commitment to refrain from dangerous chemicals). The former is not very well attended to in wholesale markets in Asia, despite being an integral part in Europe and North America, and reforms worldwide236240242243244245246248249TOPIC: Reduction of food waste There is a need to improve the whole Asian food chain, not just services within wholesale markets, but also the roads, the supply chain system, working hand in hand with farmers to improve handling, packaging, and post-harvest lost (today some countries in the region waste more than 50% of the production). Improving cold chain infrastructures during the transportation and storage logistics is key in this regard. There is a need to raise awareness and create capacity building among all the actors of the chain at the policy level (local national authorities), at the wholesale market level, and among small holder farmers. Three opportunities to decrease food waste in Asia were identified: (i) physical and information connectivity between production and consumer areas of markets, (ii) availability of post-harvest infrastructures enabling small farmers to sell their produce locally and in a fast-secure way (could be done by capacity-building to create more cooperatives), and (iii) to have financial means available to examine food waste decrease. A collective food waste management system located within the wholesale market can help address food waste. Asian markets need also better tools to measure food waste. Several markets are lacking methodology and a procedure to collect information on food waste. There is also a need to give value to waste. For example, organic waste can be used as fertilizers and biofuels - explore collaborations with startups or organizations that are specialized in this area. Moreover, the best practices must also be promoted in the region. For example, a wholesale market in Hongkong was able to decrease food waste with financial support from the government by setting up a system to distribute food waste to communities in need. Beyond this, it is also important to have a better tracking system in Asia concerning backward and forward linkages to decrease transport periods

2021-05-21 15:39:43204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/7983/203

15227533834098548885452461242087088488212

The World Union of Wholesale Markets held four independent dialogues, highlighting the role of wholesale markets as a key player in the food system. Through regional sessions held across Latin America, Asia, Europe and Africa, the dialogues showcased rich and diverse realities thus, achieving a significant level of complexity, relevance, and collective reflection about food systems throughout the world. All participants were aware of the Principles and asked to review them in the official attendance sheet.Overall, it reflected each of the Principles of Engagement through its purposeful approach to addressing the SDGs with a focus on the pivotal role of the food sector together with wholesale markets, especially amid ever-evolving regional contexts and consumption trends, and recovery strategies for the Covid-19 crisis. Its multi-stakeholder and cross-sectoral approach to discussions ensured that perspectives were inclusive and insights were gained from a representative and diverse sample of the population, ranging from academia, international organizations, NGOs, markets, and other food actors.The Principles of Engagement are an essential tool for making dialogues a success, especially in providing guidance and ensuring discussions yield holistic and inclusive outcomes. It is necessary to also reflect on these principles and understand how to best adapt them based on contexts of participants. For example, in complementing the work of others and building trust, it is important to use existing knowledge of regional specificities or local trends to shape approaches. It must also serve as a reminder of the collaborative and dynamic nature of the desired discussions.

Yes

234238239242244246248249This dialogue series focuses on the role of Wholesale Markets in shaping a sustainable food system and its relationship to other stakeholders, including local authorities, smallholder farmers, and logisticians, among others. The four dialogues focused on promoting nutritious diets and ensuring accessibility as important dimensions of food sustainability, as well as fostering smart logistics and urban planning towards making a significant contribution to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. The reduction of food waste, was also explored alongside a recognition of the essential role wholesale markers play in this pursuit. The discussion on these topics contributed to development of effective strategies and sharing of best practices in line with addressing contemporary challenges including evolving consumption trends, urbanization, rapid population growth, climate change, disruptions in food systems and livelihoods, and the continuous pursuit of collective recovery and growth amid the Covid-19 crisis. This Dialogue was based on Action Track 1, 2 and 5 in which wholesale markets make significant contributions through their central position and targeted initiatives. Action track 1 aims to end hunger and all forms of malnutrition and reduce the incidence of non-communicable disease, thereby enabling all people to become well-nourished and healthy. Wholesale markets are the biggest fresh food suppliers in the world, and experts in the distribution of nutritious, fresh and non-processed food. They are key actors to ensure availability of fresh food, particularly in cities, which are often largely populated. Thus, wholesale markets must increase linkages and cooperation with tenants, farmers, and scientists to expand the availability of nutritious food. In fact, modern wholesale markets are well-known for traceability measures to ensure food safety. This practice must be promoted for the long run while infrastructures and protocols must be adapted and implemented in line with it. In light of this, markets need to continuously safeguard the highest level of sanitation, hygiene, and handling of food. Thus, investments should aim to upgrade existing infrastructures and establish new modern wholesale markets to ensure that all cities benefit from a consistent supply of nutritious fresh food. Action track 2 aims to build consumer demand for sustainably produced food, strengthen local value chains, improve nutrition, and promote the efficient use and recycling of food resources, especially in aid of the most vulnerable. To build this demand for sustainably produced food, wholesale markets must continue to promote the benefits and implementation of sustainable production methods through knowledge-sharing, capacity-building, and advocacy among food actors especially the producers, markets, and consumers. In addition, they must strengthen local value chains, increase recycling, and transition to the use of non-polluting energy resources. In fact, in shifting to more sustainable consumption patterns, wholesale markets are examining solutions such as promoting food waste reduction and distribution of food surplus that makes nutritious food accessible to the vulnerable populations. Moreover, further action concerning e-commerce and last-mile-logistics are needed to understand how these tools can be optimized by wholesale markets and help facilitate the supply of nutritious fresh food. Action track 5 aims to ensure existence of sustainable food systems in areas that are prone to conflict or natural disasters. The strong and diversified supply channels that wholesale markets possess demonstrated significant levels of adaptability during crisis. In fact, amid the Covid-19 crisis, wholesale markets were resilient, showcasing flexibility, resourcefulness, and innovation in delivering supply of fresh food to citizens worldwide. Wholesale markets can further optimize their infrastructures and prepare for future supply chain disruptions (fe. due to disease outbreaks or effects of climate change). In addition, improved communications among wholesale markets worldwide will enhance sharing of best practices and increase resilience.235238239242243246248249A great emphasis was put on the wholesale markets ability to ensure resilient, sustainable, healthy and affordable food system in Latin America, articulate private and public sectors and accompany involved actors in sharing experience and knowledge. Participants pointed out the urgent need to bridge all stakeholder of the food sector and to work together to ensure the supply of healthy, sustainable, affordable and nutritious diet for all, prevent food losses and foster better logistical planification. Wholesale markets are key players to structure all the fresh food actors: producers, consumers, governments, traders, logisticians, associations, street markets, and food banks. During the first topic discussion relative to ensuring nutritious diet for all, the importance to promote and invest in high quality infrastructure for healthy food distribution, reduce the number of intermediaries and strengthen local value chains, ensure affordability of healthy diets and raise public awareness on healthy diets among populations was highlighted. Fostering better logistics, urban planification and traceability tools were also mentioned as core challenges. The introduction of a full, rapid, transparent model of traceability of produce, and better communication between the supply and demand that imply the identification of production centers and other key stakeholders can help to achieve these goals, as persisting loopholes are mainly due to lack of enough human resources or technologies to check food life cycles, quality and innocuity. The absence of public sector intervention and multi-stakeholder’s instances require to bolster the articulation between public and private sector alongside the value chain actors in Latin America. Hence, this might be translated by the development of multi-level food governance systems that can enhance at each level (national, regional, local) adequate food-policy programs and guidelines that can contribute to create resilient food environments that make it easier to choose healthy and sustainable diets. The reduction of food waste is a main challenge in the region, and faces many bottlenecks in terms of governance with the lack of governments involvement but also lack of legal frameworks to prevent food waste. To overcome this, there is a need to find a consensus among them, under a given authority and delimitated governance. Education is another key issue, both to encourage higher intake of fresh foods, specifically fruits and vegetables, and to prevent food waste in particular in the domestic sphere. Promoting the consumption of healthy diets for children , including school menus, came out as a solution as well as working hand in hand with municipalities to foster street markets as key places to access healthier diets – in comparison to supermarkets where consumers can mainly buy high-in-fats and sugar, processed food.236238239242244245246248249TOPIC: Nutritious Diets Accessible to All Panelists agreed on the importance to enhance the accessibility and affordability of healthy diets as a core issue of regional agri-food system. It implies the promotion and investments in high quality infrastructure for healthy food distribution to respond to the growing urbanization and demand for fresh food products in cities, shortening the distances between rural and urban areas. In addition, reduce the number of intermediaries, which could promote accessible prices for a larger part of the population. Participants agreed on the role of wholesale markets to achieve this goal. Panelists also noted the need to strengthen local value chains. For example, with the participation of wholesale markets in territorial food systems - markets that concentrate agricultural supply and allow farmers to sell their products in convenient volumes. This would promote greater communication and operational improvements between producers and distributors. Guarantees on the accessibility and affordability of healthy diets for all require to move towards sustainable consumption patterns, via the promotion of the preservation and optimization of food resources, especially for the poorest. It can be achieved by working with insertion associations to valorize unsold products and give the poorest people access to fresh and healthy vegetables. Last but not least, most of the panelists converged on the need to raise public awareness, since the childhood, as a core leverage to ensure nutritious diet for all. First by encouraging nutritional education and promoting dietary proposals that lead to a higher intake of fresh foods, specifically fruits and vegetables. For example, through the promotion of dishes made with local products, or structured education programs on healthy nutrition aimed at all sectors of the population, especially vulnerable groups. Then by promoting the consumption of healthy diets for children, including school menus by working hand in hand with municipalities to foster street markets as key places to access healthier diets – in comparison to supermarkets where consumers can mainly buy high-in-fats and sugar, processed food. Better health guidance and public procurement could also encourage better food consumption patterns and more plant-based diets.236238239242243244245246248249TOPIC: Smart Logistics and Urban Planning Among key takeaways from this dialogue, panelists particularly mentioned logistics, traceability and urban planning in order to achieve smart logistics of food value chain in Latin America. It was discussed of the integration of a full, rapid, transparent model of traceability of food distribution. This implies the identification of production centres, like farms and small-sized properties, then processors or rural-wholesale markets, logisticians, before accessing urban wholesale markets and therefore consumers. This must be accompanied by the improvement of the cold chain, better logistics and can be improved by the development of digital tools. In what concerns traceability, control of the supply and food safety, technology can play an important role to have accurate monitoring and to collect information’s on food life cycles, quality, and food safety. Today the lack of effective traceability is often due to the lack of human resources available or easy technologies. Cold chains also have to be better integrated into logistics and infrastructures, that diverge from a territory to another, and to effectively cover populations needs in order to meet the 2030 Agenda commitments. Participants stressed the important role that data mining and the development of digital tools can play to ensure best fresh food supply and logistics ( eg . Colombia develop a project to monitor the characteristics of the cargo and analysis obtained data (e.g : cost check, consumption). This data collection and analysis will enable to design a supply planning without disruption and shortage of food. In terms of logistics, and to limit the traffic of supply in major metropolitan areas, the development of smart urban agriculture would be useful (agriculture next to cities). Wholesale markets could facilitate the selling of products through communication between supply and demand, and they can help improve last mile logistics solutions to comply with more efficient and eco-friendly urban distribution schemes. They could play a major role bringing accessibility to a broad scale of actors and reaching cities requirements in terms of emissions, transports, optimize logistics and traffic congestions. Collaborations with national, regional, and local governments could ensure that wholesale markets are empowered to build sustainable food supply systems. For example, by discussing effective locations for wholesale markets in urban planning and including the different stakeholders participation. Panelists also mentioned the importance on reinforcing multi-stakeholder dialogue by creating dialogue platforms. There is currently in Latin America a lack of articulation between public-private sector (lots of markets are not in touch with authorities). Yet, this is crucial for the regulation of markets actors to overcome current difficulties, to distribute food efficiently spatially, to diversify centers of supply and to implement food governance policies/urban food planning. Public sector investment was identified as crucial, as the development of efficient and feasible projects requires public national and international incentives. By gathering all stakeholders of the agri-food sector in round tables that could be organized with wholesale markets and in cooperation with local and regional governments, it is also expected that capacity building will be bolstered. With the aim to ensure the development and the integration of supply centers at the national level, this scheme has been set up notably in Mexico with “competitivity agricultural circuits” in four different regions.236238239242244246248249250TOPIC: Reduction of Food Waste The reduction of food waste and losses are at the cornerstone of building a resilient and sustainable food system in Latin America and to ensure access to diet for all. Yet, the regional food system is bagged down into paradox, consisting of surplus of supply and production, while many livelihoods are still in a situation of food insecurity, further exacerbated with the outbreak of Covid-19. The reduction of food waste is a core strand in the region, and faces many bottlenecks, that require the improvement of governance ins-and-outs and incentives on best practices platforms. First regarding governance, panelists agreed on the fact that raising awareness and finding a consensus/best practices on the issue of food waste are key. However, one of the major regional bottlenecks is the current legal framework. There is a need to adopt required legislation not only for raising public awareness but also to prevent food waste and to incorporate all sectors (e.g : foster legislation that facilitates reduction of food waste/give incentives to do it). Moreover, in order to reduce food waste and losses that occur along the food value chain, there is a need to improve the cold chain to increase the life span of fresh products, alongside with capacities of recycling food (compost, forage, energy), and to a larger extent to have better planning of the production considering the seasonality of the food to avoid surplus of production of some items. This issue can only be resolved collectively, by gathering all food sector stakeholders, throughout best practices platforms, as sharing experience and knowledge among centers of supply is critical to understand the ins-and-outs of food waste and what role they can have. Wholesale markets must accompany involved actors in this dynamism. Inclusiveness implies the participation of academics and field-experts (they have better understanding of actual “pain points” and propose accurate solutions), civil society organizations (ensure that they can count on good storage and logistics facilities). Governments should give incentives to promote food donation when possible and foster the link between wholesalers and associations. In addition , it was identified during the discussions that a great share of food losses happened in domestic spheres, and hence requires actions through prevention and education since childhood.237238243245Divergences were raised during the discussion on ensuring access to nutritious food for all, regarding the reason of the current low consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables in Latin America. If most of the participants explained that this was due to lack of knowledge, others noted that people were actually aware about the importance to consume this type of food, but were hindered by their high costs and the aggressive marketing of high-processed- high in fat/sugar food industry.

2021-05-21 15:48:05204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/16709/126

35

Yes

234238239240241242244245246248249251This discussions explored opportunities for innovation and investment to promote healthy local food systems that generate livelihoods for local businesses and promote environmental regeneration. The Municipality of Quelimane shared their experience and examples of how innovation can shape the urban food system and how to leverage the potential and lessons learnt from Quelimane Limpa and Quelimane Agricola, for future sustainable and resilient food systems initiatives with cross cutting food systems benefits.235238239240241242244245246248249251• There is huge potential for the Zambezia Province, where Quelimane is the capital, for agricultural production, especially the production of nutritious local food such as Rice (there is an identified unique and flavourful rice local to Zambezia), Corn, Soy and animal husbandry such as Cattle keeping instead of the over reliance on imported foods from South Africa and other provinces. Imported foods are expensive and some have low nutritional value. Food diversification is crucial because crop growing depends largely on the weather seasons in the region, hence diversifying food production may benefit the food system in Quelimane City. • It was recognised that it is essential to promote environmentally friendly food systems so as to contribute towards building climate change resilience for Quelimane. Discussions were centered on how to effectively manage land and forestry resources, the mangroves and other natural assets of Quelimane. • There are a number of opportunities for investment and innovation to the Quelimane food system; the group commented that promotion of effective fishing, creation of clean energy, mechanising production and irrigation systems may enhance innovative and sustainable development. • Urban infrastructure planning, for example planning for location and distribution of markets is fundamental as well as transport systems is key for reduction of food loss and waste as well as promoting livelihoods in the food system. • Investment in digital technologies/infrastructure for people to sell remotely, and not necessarily in stores etc. It would also have been good in situations such as the COVID lockdown. • Policies, mechanisms and institutions that promote synergy between the different food system stakeholders through initiatives such as agricultural assemblies are crucial. This will improve the quality of the impact we derive. Synergy between stakeholders will also assist smallholders to be active in this process and to move towards commercialisation.236238239240241242244245248249251Outcomes on how to improve access to safe and nutritious food in Quelimane There is huge potential for the Zambezia Province, where Quelimane is the capital, for agricultural production, especially the production of nutritious local food such as Rice (there is an identified unique and flavourful rice local to Zambezia), Corn, Soy and animal husbandry such as Cattle keeping instead of the over reliance on imported foods from South Africa and other provinces. Imported foods are expensive and some have low nutritional value. In order to promote food production of local plant species, the municipality and stakeholders need to dedicate resources towards: • The Promotion/ celebration of local foods such as the toasted rice, Zambezia pineapple, among others that are local to the Zambezia: promotion nationally and even globally. This will drive the demand, eventually change perceptions as well as create employment opportunities for local farmers. • Create infrastructure that ensures attractiveness of markets; projects hybrid markets (physical and online such as the Seana Daud model). Market Refrigeration systems to keep vegetables fresh (those that are low tech but effective enough be used by roadside trader, or affordable and easy to maintain by low income traders. • There is need for effective city level certification processes that can be implemented in partnership with the national government. Currently certification is done in Maputo. • Agricultural assemblies to link local producers with government structures, with aim of boosting local production. Develop community training programs. • Physical infrastructure project to improve distribution of food in urban areas esp. road and rail. Outcomes on how to boost nature positive production. It was recognised that is is essential to promote environmentally friendly food systems so as to contribute towards building climate change resilience for Quelimane. Discussions were centered on how to effectively manage land and forestry resources, the mangroves and other natural assets of Quelimane. These were identified as other ecological activities can be implemented in Quelimane to boost both the environment and increase supply of nutritious food locally. • Promotion of environmentally friendly food production activities such as: o Bee-keeping Through beekeeping projects, the household can earn income and lead to better food security, livelihoods and environmental regeneration. o Mushroom farming: this will not destroy the forestry as both activities can take place mutually through agro-forestry. The problem is to dry them - preservation . o Investment in Fish ponds to improve nutrition status but also supplement fishing and reduce incidents of over fishing. • Financial incentives to communities to promote agro-ecology. o Community to benefit at least 20% of revenue from natural resources exploitation and conservation. o E-vouchers whereby financiers can support farmers: electronic provision of loans - introduced also in emergency situations. Also leads to more generation of information such as gendered allocations of the e-vouchers.237N/A

2021-05-21 17:36:59204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/11172/203

84023331505317012901573101122643650022225131151318

El Diálogo fue organizado de manera conjunta y co-gestionada por el Instituto Interamericano de Cooperación para la Agricultura, IICA, y Cooperativas de las Américas, Regional de la Alianza Cooperativa Internacional, ACI, con el concurso especifico de su Organización sectorial agropecuario - REDACOOP.El debate se apoyó en un documento preparatorio, previamente repartido a todos los participantes inscriptos en el cual se analizó el papel que las empresas cooperativas pueden jugar, al momento de transformar los sistemas alimentarios, mundiales y nacionales, tal como es el objetivo de la Cumbre convocada por el Secretario General de las Naciones Unidas.Sin comentarios adicionales.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246248249Este diálogo se realizó con la intención de hacer escuchar la voz del sector cooperativo de las Américas en la Cumbre Mundial sobre Sistemas Alimentarios, llevando el mensaje de que las empresas cooperativas integradas conforman un conjunto de sistemas alimentarios, por lo que son un actor de gran importancia y con amplias capacidades para contribuir con la transformación de los sistemas alimentarios y con el cumplimiento de los ODS en el continente americano. El diálogo aspira a generar insumos para que, por medio de la Cumbre, las políticas públicas y los acuerdos internacionales consideren a las empresas cooperativas como sistemas alimentarios, reconociendo su participación en diversos componentes de esos sistemas, destacando además, los valores y principios cooperativos como orientaciones adecuadas para impulsar emprendimientos que se desarrollen bajo condiciones económicas y sociales con capacidad de transformarlos. Siguiendo esta orientación, el diálogo pretendió reflexionar sobre la contribución de las empresas cooperativas en la transformación de los sistemas alimentarios, así como también, identificar los elementos que esos emprendimientos colectivos pueden ofrecer y cuáles deben resolver para contribuir con esa transformación. Algunos elementos que justifican esta temática son: • Las empresas cooperativas son instrumentos imprescindibles y eficaces para la inserción incluyente de los agricultores en las cadenas globales de valor, especialmente los agricultores familiares. A partir de la integración de sus capacidades facilitan su participación competitiva en los mercados y, además, democratizan la riqueza que se genera, teniendo un impacto positivo en el desarrollo rural. • Se integran y conjugan en los diferentes eslabones de las cadenas de valor agrícolas y agro industriales. De esta forma, generan capacidad negociadora y poder de mercado para que, a partir diversos esquemas de comercialización, como circuitos cortos y sistemas alimentarios locales, entre otros, abastecen a millones de consumidores a nivel mundial. • El cooperativismo es el esquema asociativo formal más difundido en todo el continente. Cuenta con políticas públicas y mecanismos de regulación y estímulo que se aplican a partir de una institucionalidad consolidada en todos nuestros países, y es además, reconocido tanto por el sector público como por el resto del sector privado. • Las cooperativas de diversas modalidades como las de consumo, servicios técnico-profesionales, ahorro y crédito, transporte y logística, entre otros, conforman sub – sistemas que articulados entre sí, contribuyen con las vías de acción planteadas para la Cumbre, según se indica: o (i) Garantizar el acceso a alimentos sanos y nutritivos para todos: Producir y distribuir alimentos es la razón de ser de las empresas cooperativas agrarias y las de consumo. Las cooperativas aumentan la competitividad y la escala de la oferta agrícola, mediante una gestión conjunta de los negocios agrícolas; (ii) Adoptar modalidades de consumo sostenibles: A partir de una oferta que se adapta a las exigencias de los consumidores y a las recomendaciones y estrategias de los programas de seguridad alimentaria y nutricional de cada país; (iii) Impulsar la producción favorable a la naturaleza: Desde el séptimo principio cooperativo sobre la responsabilidad de las cooperativas de velar por el bienestar y la calidad de vida de sus comunidades, hasta su papel como instrumento de varias políticas públicas, entre ellas las de uso y manejo responsable de los ecosistemas; (iv) Promover medios de vida equitativos: Las cooperativas son empresas de la economía social, que por naturaleza buscan la inclusión, el comercio justo, y que generan empleos genuinos en las localidades donde están instaladas; (v) Crear resiliencia ante las vulnerabilidades, las conmociones y las tensiones: Una vez más, está en la naturaleza de las empresas cooperativas la preocupación por el bienestar de sus asociados, sus trabajadores y las comunidades donde se localizan.235238239240241242243244245246248249251• Las cooperativas son empresas de personas, basadas en un código de valores universalmente reconocidos e instaladas en un territorio donde producen y distribuyen riqueza cuidando, al mismo tiempo, de los recursos naturales que lo integran. • Las cooperativas son entonces “sistemas para la producción del bien común”: del territorio dónde se instalan y que se encargan de cuidar; de sus asociados a quiénes reparten beneficios económicos; de las sociedades donde reparten cohesión social. • El papel de las cooperativas para la transformación de los sistemas agro alimentarios de Américas en un mundo en transformación necesita de la profundización del sexto principio cooperativo (“ínter-cooperación”) vertical, favoreciendo la integración de sus sectores y cadenas de valor generando economía de escala: agropecuario con consumo y distribución, con industria y servicios, con ahorro y finanza, también aprovechando las potencialidades de la aplicación de las modernas tecnologías. • Las cooperativas de Américas pueden generar procesos de integración sectoriales para trasformar los mercados nacionales, intrarregionales y regionales, aportando a sistemas más sostenibles a escala global: lo que es propiciado por ser organizadas en organismos sectoriales regionales (Redacoop - agropecuario; CICOPA - trabajo, industria y servicios; Red Consumo; COFIA - ahorro y crédito, servicios financieros) que articulan en la Alianza Cooperativa Internacional- ACI a nivel mundial a través de sus pares desde las demás regiones del globo, tal como la Organización Internacional de Cooperativas Agrarias (ICAO), el Comité Internacional de Cooperativas de Producción Industrial, Artesanal y de Servicios (CICOPA), la Organización Mundial de Cooperativas de Consumo (CCW), la Organización Internacional de Cooperativas de Pesca (IFCO), la Asociación Internacional de Bancos Cooperativos (AIBC) entre otras. • En diálogo permanente con las autoridades de Gobierno de los Estados y con los representantes de los Organismos Ínter gubernamentales de la Región de Américas el sistema de empresas cooperativas debe ser reconocido en sus características propias y específicas y en su potencialidad de ser en sí mismas actores estratégicos para la sostenibilidad de la linea de producción y consumo para el abastecimiento de servicios de interés público, tal como escuelas, hospitales, puestos comunitarios utilizando la capilaridad de sus presencias en el territorio. • También, por ser empresas y entonces parte del sector privado, con sus propias características organizativas y productivas, las cooperativas pueden participar en alianza privadas – privadas con otros tipos de empresas y actores del sector privado para alcanzar mejor sus objetivos de producir una mayor cantidad y variedad de alimentos, saludables, sostenibles y a precios accesibles. • Las empresas cooperativas pueden aportar a la transformación de los sistemas alimentarios sostenibles apuntando a la creación de trabajo digno en el ámbito rural y, por su propia características, apuntar al emprendimiento de la mujer y de los jóvenes, movilizando sus respectivos conocimientos, aportes, capacidades innovadoras. • Los sistemas alimentarios conformados por las empresas cooperativas, son capaces de asociar millones de voluntades, capacidades y saberes en la producción agrícola, que se traduce en una oferta sostenida y sostenible de alimentos, producidos bajo exigentes sistemas de control social, generando prácticas comerciales, responsables e inclusivas. Su voz y su presencia internacional, debería ser recogida en los debates de la cumbre, y transformado en un reconocimiento de sus potencialidades transformadoras, que a su vez se reflejen en políticas públicas, instrumentos y recursos por parte de los estados nacionales y un reconocimiento explícito como un sistema de empresas de economía social, interlocutor, para las transformaciones, por parte de los organismos multilaterales.236238239240241242243244245246248249251• Innovación permanente en la gestión de sus servicios a la producción y la comercialización. Esto para competir con éxito, frente a otras formas y mecanismos comerciales, no formales o con menores exigencias de transparencia en la gestión y sus resultados. • Destacan los desafíos financieros, en particular disponer de capital de trabajo que permita pre – financiar los negocios realizados, para que el asociado pueda recibir el pago por sus productos, mientras la empresa cooperativa comercializa los mismos. • Sustituir las grandes inversiones en infraestructura de acopio, acondicionamiento, transporte y logística, que consumía reservas y capital de las cooperativas o las endeudaba en cifras inalcanzables a ellas y a sus socios, por plataformas de negocios, utilizando las tecnologías digitales, la gestión de la información y el conocimiento, y los acuerdos comerciales, a partir de contratos de explotación, usufructo y/o arrendamiento para equipamiento e inversiones ya realizadas por otras empresas y/o los Estados. • Un desafío final se relaciona con la competencia de grandes empresas que enfrentan las cooperativas, en particular las de cobertura transnacional. Estas presentan capacidades competitivas contra las que es difícil que muchas de las cooperativas compitan, en especial respecto de las condiciones financiera que estas empresas ofrecen a los productores, incluso a los socios de las propias cooperativas. • Formación de cuadros dirigentes, cuadros ejecutivos - gerenciales y asociados operando bajo una misma estrategia comercial, un mismo plan de negocios y una demanda orientada por los mercados. Equilibrar una conducción democrática, representativa, participativa e informada, con la excelencia en el logro de resultados económico – comerciales. • La integración entre cooperativas, respaldándose mutuamente en mercados donde están en competencia con otras formas jurídico – empresariales. • Fortalecer su integración en los aspectos económicos, o sea, integrar alianzas económico – comerciales, plataformas, consorcios, centrales y/o plataformas de negocios entre sí, entre diferentes modalidades y con empresas no cooperativas que puedan aportar una función estratégica. • Mejorar los canales y la gestión de la comunicación con la sociedad, buscando dar visibilidad y que se comprenda adecuadamente la naturaleza las cooperativas y su potencial para contribuir con el desarrollo. • Incorporar mejoras permanentes e innovadoras en la gestión, de forma de alcanzar los más altos estándares en la calidad de los productos que ofrecen. Esto debe darse en forma estable y en tiempo y forma, y adecuarse a las normas y demandas de los consumidores. • La primera tensión por resolver en forma permanente es la emergente del principio de puertas abiertas y la excelencia en la gestión y los buenos negocios que permitan una mejora sostenida en los ingresos de sus asociados. Esto se resuelve con formación, con mecanismo de gestión empresarial específicos y adaptados a unidades de pequeña escala, democratizando la información y buscando la excelencia en materia de la conducción empresarial. También buscando alianzas con cooperativas de diferente escala y tamaño económico.237No se han manifestado temas de divergencia en ninguno de los apartados del dialogo.

2021-05-23 00:52:46204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/19923/41

The session was designed to encourage diverse attendance and to garner interaction that is thought provoking and solutions based. The strategy was to have an open invitation to a broad audience from multiple sectors and countries to discuss the Food System and explore economic development. This was an open invitation to a broad audience from multiple sectors and countries to discuss the Food System and explore economic development possibilities. The Independent Dialogue was organized in collaboration with CSAYN, ensuring broad participation for attendees and speakers. The session explored topics that looked at the Food Systems, with speakers from the United Nations, International Organizations and Civil Society. The topic was focussed on the Climate Smart Victory Gardens (CSVG) Model as a proven solution, while addressing current environmental, economic and social inclusion issues. The CSVG Model touches on all five Food Dialogue Tracks, making it a comprehensive and sustainable strategy for communitiesIn organizing the Dialogue, every attempt was made to incorporate all the Principles. The Commit to the Summit Principle played an important role that encapsulated all the Principles. The presenters outlined specific programs to highlight and encourage collaboration to solve the complex food systems. Many highlighted diverse, inclusive, and multiple options to encourage participation, change the food system into a multistakeholder, culturally based and respectful value chain system to create a just, accessible and local food for all.Read the manual and work with a team to promote and engage as many organizations as possible. As part of the planning and organizing, discuss the Principles of engagement thoroughly, and highlight them during welcome segment to emphasize their importance for the Food Dialogues.

Yes

234238239240241242244248251The major focus of the Dialogue explore how can the Climate Smart Victory(CSVG) Model be utilized as an economic development program to ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all. The Five Tracks of the Food Summit Dialogues can be easily incorporated in the CSVG Model. Historically, the Victory Garden engaged women and youth to grow and nourish themselves, can/preserve for future use, and sell the surplus creating income for the family. Growing local food is one of the best ways to increase nutrition security, reduce carbon footprint, build prosperity and create economic conditions for community. Integrating the Food Summit Dialogues tracks will make a difference in rebuilding neighbourhoods with a sense of belonging and social connections One of the concrete action is the collaboration of many people from various organizations interacting to discuss how shared resources can make a difference in changing the food system and create food security for all.235238239240241242244245248251The key finding s are as follows: -Youth need to see agriculture as an interesting job; -Solutions need to look at food from production to consumption; -Agriculture education need to be part of primary and secondary school curriculum; -Include biodiversity strategies in farming; -Digital agriculture will play a big role in the future; and -Making agriculture economically viable236238239240241242244245248251There was no specific session discussion of outcomes, however, many on the call have made connections and are now setting up calls to explore actions and solutions237238239240241242244245248251Everyone was in agreement that the food system need to change and that special emphasis should be on youth as farmers.

2021-05-23 04:06:52205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/17001/39

149595130923

This event was designed to present progress made, planning and commitments for agroecology and safe food systems transition in Cambodia. The event was part of the '4 per1000' Fair for EU Green Week 2021 and involved by national and international participants..The dialogue reflected a joint commitment on the part of the many international and national partners associated with the Conservation Agriculture and Sustainable Intensification Consortium (CASIC), the Department of Land Resources Management of the General Directorate of Agriculture, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, CIRAD, Swiss Contact, Kansas State University and the Agroecology Learning Alliance in South East Asia (ALiSEA). The partners are linked to various projects including the Agroecology for Safe Food Systems Transition Project (ASSET), the Centre for Excellence in Sustainable Intensification and Nutrition (CESAIN) and the development of MetKaksekor. This commitment reflects the principles of acting with urgency, commitment to the summit, recognition of complexity and embracing multi-stakeholder inclusivity. This event marked significant new investment, a strong history of research and development and the commencement of new initiatives bringing together new capabilities and experience to support a game changing approach to agricultural sustainability in Cambodia.Use social media to promote high level events in webinar format using live streaming online or links to recorded video to allow wide participation and increase awareness of events. with so many Zoom meetings taking place it is important to provide information on forthcoming events for the potential attendees.

NoThis event was based on a detailed presentation and participants were well versed in the content. It served as a statement of commitment to the plans presented. Ongoing discussions required to extend the discussion, especially engagement with a larger population of farmers and technical staff and to gain the support of environmental stakeholders.

234240244The focus of this event was to promote food and agricultural systems in Cambodia and in neighboring countries are more sustainable, safer and inclusive through synergizing initiatives contributing to Agroecological and Safe food system transitions from local to regional levels, The event proposed critical linkages with value chains to extend the model of agroecological farming by encouraging Soil Organic Carbon sequestration and rewarding farmers for the production of ecosystem services. The event described the research and enabling environment to engage the public and private sectors and to reward farmers for Soil Carbon Sequestration through: estimating SOC storage potential and benefits; developing adapted management practices; defining and strengthening the enabling environment; and exploring carbon markets.235240243244245248249Cambodia commits to achieve an economic growth rate of 7% per annum to reach an upper-middle income country by 2030. Agriculture is a key driver for economic development. Achieving a sustainable agricultural growth at 5% per annum aims to achieve the Royal Government of Cambodia’s objectives for food security, poverty reduction, and increased climate resiliency. There is a need for the Cambodian agriculture sector to reinvent itself by shifting from increased production through land expansion and excessive use of inputs towards sustainable intensification. The low level of crop diversification in the uplands and cultivation of legume crops are largely missing. Along with no-till systems, these practices can help in preserving soil fertility, increasing soil C and are essential for an agroecological transition. The development of agricultural practices in Cambodia is rooted in development issues designing agroecological cropping systems and assessing their impacts and performance. There is ongoing research to develop a soil infrared calibration for determination of soil organic carbon supported by two key projects with the DALRM of the General Directorate of Agriculture. This includes the on-going work of the Global Soil Partnership updating SOC stocks at national scale with potential comparison of land uses (DALRM/ GDA & FAO) and a project on Infra-red Spectroscopy (2021 – 2022, ASSET/FFEM, GDA/DALRM & CIRAD). The research and educational platforms supporting the transition are broad with both national and international linkages including a 5 year roadmap under design for a National and Regional Training Center on CA/SI & Agroecology (Bos Khnor); support to farmer groups, seed producers of cover crops and agricultural cooperatives; long-term experiments (from 2009 onwards), a strong partnership of agronomists, research institutions, higher education, NGOs. In addition, the efforts are supported by CE SAIN with five Technology parks in contrasting agro-ecosystems; the Agroecology Learning Alliance in South East Asia (ALiSEA) which brought up stakeholders’ concerns; and the Agroecology in South East Asia platform (ASEA). Private sector engagement is an important aspect of the thrust, including Appropriate Scale Mechanization Consortium (ASMC) run by RUA and the Sustainable Intensification and Innovation Laboratory (SIIL) of the Kansas State University. It is vital to engage the private sector right along the value chain for the sustainability of the transition. Private sector actors are involved in providing technology, inputs, operational know how and access to finance to support the transition. The transition is also supported through MetKaksekor, an “opening the market’’ early adopter led extension service model. MetKasekor focuses on opening the market for private sector investments on Sustainable Intensification via government agents and the private sector to provide access to services for smallholder farmers in Cambodia. Training and research will be facilitated by the Conservation Agriculture and Sustainable Intensification Consortium (CASIC) under the MAFF which aims to become a platform for promoting conservation agriculture and sustainable intensification towards agroecological transition in Cambodia and Southeast Asia. The consortium brings together the resources and capabilities of the government and the development partners under the management of the MAFF. Under the Nationally Determined Contributions for climate change adaptation and mitigation ASSET will contribute to Adaptation Action no. 1 through an agroecological transition in the uplands of Battambang and to Mitigation Action no. 25: Increasing the effectiveness and sustainability of agricultural land management techniques (Conservation Agriculture). While waiting for formalisation of carbon certification, ASSET will contribute to 1.Enrolling in carbon registries; 2.Mobilizing farmers to join; 3.Collecting data about baseline carbon levels; 4.Verifying emissions reductions; and 5.Selling carbon.237240242244245246250There are possibly three key areas of divergence that sit as obstacles to conservation agriculture, sustainable agriculture and agro-ecological transformation: 1. The difference between the mainstream thrusts for modernization of agriculture and the misinterpretation of conservation agriculture as something driven by the views of conservationists, who are out of step with the drive for modernization, production increases and productivity improvements in agriculture (where land degradation and other externalities like climate change are un-costed). 2. The situation of poor farmers who are unable to wait for the medium to long term (and somewhat uncertain) benefits identified by scientists and policy makers who are keen to reverse the degradation trends and environmental costs. Short-term and immediate benefits are required for most farmers and especially for the poor. There is also a trade-off in terms of lack of secure tenure or longer-term expectations over agricultural land and unwillingness to invest in the long-term productivity of individual parcels of land in the face of immediate needs and prospects of land sale for other purposes.

2021-05-24 04:17:22https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0341816220306159Addendum: With apologies for errors in text for: Department of Agricultural Land Resources Management (DALRM) Centre for Excellence on Sustainable Agricultural Intensification and Nutrition (CE SAIN) Metkasekor and to emphasise the role of the Royal University of Agriculture in the partnerships supporting agroecology and safe food transitions.2021-05-24 04:42:52

2021-05-24 15:49:24204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/15864/106

364256133328334

The dialogue was organized by three(3) women led organizations whcih included Women In Agriculture for Sustainable Development, The foundation for Community Initiatives and the Women Ininatives for Sustainale Agriculture. The principle of engagement was well followed. Stakeholders were drawn from diverse works of life, they wer treated with respect the space was free for everyone to voice out thier issues, the dialogue complemented work that is being done currently bythe minirty of Agriculture. we bult trust with the partipants and staklersholder. we also treated the dialogue with urgency knowing the food insecutity would be dangerous to us allOur partcipants were selected from differnt areas. some educated and others not. we enecorge with farmers, policy makers, transporters etcto ensure that we got diverse views. we also create a free space for everyone to share their views by settingthe stage and declaring that in this hall thereis no worng answre and people should be respected for their views.People planning to have a dialogue to be prepare far ahead. If you have documents to print you so in advanced. Also it would be good that you follow up with your partcicipants a day before the event.

Yes

234238241244245246248249251The major focus of our dialogue was on how we ensure that everyone have access to affordable and nutriuos food. This was was likned to Action track1236Below are outcome from the dialogue and action we recommend  Improve farm to market roads  Link farmers to buyers  Subsides farming  Stop using chemicals  Review past policies on agriculture and update farmers list  Create more awareness on women’s land right  Support and involvement of different gov ministries  Value addition  Plant what you eat  Establish cooperatives  Build storage facilities  Digitalize farming  Monitor farmers for compliance

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Food-System-Summit-Dialogue-20210517.pdfhttps://web.facebook.com/Women-in-Agriculture-for-Sustainable-Development-101915745122911

2021-05-24 17:09:38205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/10765/138

Yes

2021-05-24 17:24:57https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/ملخص-جميع-المسار1.docx

2021-05-24 22:26:38205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/11895/21

4201015134017232513400521010030021541000052521140130121

The Principles of Engagement were first introduced during the opening remarks of the Convenor as part of welcoming the participants. It was mentioned during the speech by highlighting the Principles phrases. Following this, the Curator explained the importance of the Principles and provided each description as it relates to the Dialogues. These Principles were further emphasized during the Minister’s remarks as he placed their importance in the context of transforming the food systems.Specific aspects of the Principles that were noted was the agreed need to act with urgency to determine game-changing ways of improving the food system in its entity. Participants were respectful in their discussions as they listened to each other and commented on specific points made by others that changed their viewpoint on possible solutions. This showed that each other recognized the various multi-stakeholder work. In addition, the complexities of the food system were recognized as comments fluctuated from environmental, financial and policy issues. In concluding the Dialogue, a shared dedication to the Principles of Engagement amongst participants was acknowledged and trust that future engagements and commitments will be upheld.The take-away advice to other Convenors is to ensure that these Principles are stated at the beginning of the Dialogue to set the expectations of the discussions. Once this is acknowledged and accepted by participants, they will understand that their voices are equally important to creating change.

NoIn preparation for the Dialogue, the Convenor, Curator and Facilitators participated in two training courses to ensure that the method of conducting a Dialogue was understood to be implemented. The method used was similar to that which was advised. The below delineates the flow of the Dialogue: Opening Remarks - Jeri Kelly, National Convenor -Introduce self; technical check for good connectivity; -Noted the reactions icon to raise hand to participate -PSA Video played for general awareness of the Food Systems Summit and to allow time for additional participants to enter -Took an Ice breaker Poll -Introduce Curator/Master of Ceremony Welcome - Dr. Johnson, BAHFSA - Curator -Welcome participants -Outline the Principles of Engagement for the Dialogues -Stated the format of the Dialogue -Reiterate that it is a People’s Summit and we want participants to be engaged “to hear from the game changers” -Introduce Minister Pintard Remarks by Minister Pintard -Overview of the Food Systems Summit -Importance of the Dialogues and Principles of Engagement, and Action Tracks -Engaging other Ministries, Organizations, Women Group etc. to host dialogues Presentation of the Theme and Discussion Groups - Dr. Johnson (Curator) -Present Facilitators then Break Out Session Break out Session/Discussion Groups - 25mins Plenary - Summary of Discussions - 10mins Questions and Answers Closing Remarks - Kelly -Thanking persons for attending and reminding them that they are able to host their own Food Systems Dialogues - MAMR will assist with preparations In preparation for the Discussion Groups, the Facilitators developed prompt questions amongst the team. Participants were asked to state their preferred Discussion Group to be placed during the registration process. During the Dialogue, participants were placed in their selected groups and examined the food system in the perspective of that Discussion Topic. Facilitators indicated that all voices were heard and following the plenary session, participants were allowed to further add remarks. Facilitators noted that the time for discussions was short but this suggests more Dialogues to be held.

234238246249Action Track 1 - Ensure Access to Safe & Nutritious Food for All Topic: Making nutritious foods available and accessible throughout the Family Islands. How can we support our Family Islands local food systems? Description: The concept of food security is most often perceived as “being able to secure sufficient food for oneself” generally overlooking the principle dimensions of accessibility, availability, stability, and utility that is required to achieve an overall food security. This Dialogue will examine two key pillars of Food Security - ‘accessibility’ and ‘availability’ by discussing the challenges faced in the Family Islands’ local food system value chain. The objective of discussions is to identify transformative ways to support local island communities in improving their circular economies through efficient food systems.235238244245246248249Food Safety and Quality in the Family Islands (rural islands) There is a great concern that food on the rural islands are of less quality and are at risk of being safe. There is the decision to focus on educating all stakeholders (farmers, food transport, retailers, and consumers) on food safety throughout the supply chain. The use of community-based food certification programmes was considered to be a feasible option of determining food quality and safety. Access to Agriculture and Marine Finance Over the past year, there has been a significant attempt to provide farmers and fishers with access to funds for development through increased funding grants. However, this is still limited to the main islands and the criteria set for obtaining funding does not include the large scope of agricultural and fisheries needs, thereby still limiting potential impact. A decision has been made to educate persons on grant writing for seeking additional capital as grant funding is readily available but often farmers and fishers are limited in capacity for developing proposals. Furthermore, new connections will be sought to offer the sector accessible lines of credit through digital currency and blockchains. Waste Management to improve local food production In efforts to combat the impacts of climate change, private stakeholders have committed to further collaboration with the government on work on Climate Action. Through building the capacities at the political level on waste management policies and at the territorial level in practice, it is agreed that each actor will adhere to their responsibilities in managing waste. Whereby implementing policies and governance or by composting on the fields and not littering in the oceans. There is a commitment towards small acts for a big impact.236238243248251Discussion Topic - Local Food Production, Value Addition and the Craft Cottage Sector Challenge (i): Limited access to new technology and agricultural inputs (e.g. new varieties, packaging materials, irrigations, solar energy, etc.) Solution: The government can continue to provide incentives, materials, and financing to farmers/producers to boost interest (especially for youth) in the sector as agriculture is an expensive and often laborious venture. Challenge (ii): Decline of our extension support system Solution: Strengthen our extension support system to assist farmers/producers with improving production through traditional farming and to capitalize on the use of new technologies. Assist farmers/producers with broadening expanding their clientele through agro-tourism and marketing strategies so that they can reach consumers that would not be reached otherwise. Assist farmers/producers to develop niche markets and help them to be prepared for external markets.236238242243248249Discussion Topic 2: Food Transport and Market Information Systems Challenge: inefficient food transport (mainly vessels) to and from rural islands; Quality of meat imported has decreased due to the pandemic; Inconsistency of food supplies; mishandling of food throughout supply chain; Lack of proper training in food safety, proper manufacturing practices and HACCP standards. Solutions: Provide training to build capacity in different topics of interests to farmers/producers; to build awareness on how to maximize the value of their production; and to encourage farmers/producers adopt value addition that is tailored to their level of production. . Facilitate training through mentorship for people in the cottage industry. Standardize production/ manufacturing of food using a system similar to cooperatives. (i.e. Establish a general plant for processing to enable farmers/producers to use modern and more appealing packaging.) Consider community based food standards certification Improve transport and cost of goods. Refrigerated vessels are needed. Consider the use of drones to improve transport.236238243245248251Discussion Topic: Family Island Circular Economy Challenge: Young people leaving the Family Islands (rural islands) Solution: We must think of sustainability in order to keep young people from leaving the islands and to attract others that have already left as well as new ones. Providing incentives (i.e. good job opportunities) and infusion of capital on the islands will assist.237Participants were on one accord with the opinions shared. There is the dire need to begin the work towards improving the food system as these forms of discussions are usually had but rarely acted on due to limiting human and financial resources.

2021-05-25 04:00:36205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/20322/95

393093244127432243253

NoIn the Japan National Food Systems Dialogue with Sustainable Consortium for Agriculture, Forestry, Fisheries and Food (SCAFFF) held on 26th April 2021, MAFF explained the outline of FSS including the purpose and the key issues of sustainable food system. The members from SCAFFF made comments on that.

234239240244248In this dialogue, we discussed challenges and opportunities especially related to Action Track 2 and 3.235239240244248The meeting with SCAFFF was held to exchange opinions related to SDGs and sustainable food systems. The main remarks of the participants are as follows. (Manufacturer of horticulture facilities) (1) In order to transform the present system to sustainable food systems, it is important for each stakeholder to cooperate one another. Our company has used the exhausted heat and gas from local incineration plants to produce agricultural products, which is called a circular economy approach. Other measures include establishment of a matching site between producers and consumers, which includes demand-oriented production systems, agricultural education through SDGs scoring, and other measures in cooperation with different stakeholders. (Airline company) (1) Our company is trying to establish a system that directly links with disaster (e.g. typhoon) stricken farms. They may need cash as soon as possible, and we think it would be helpful if there was a system to connect the farmers, who want to secure income by producing their agricultural products in short terms, and the companies that desire to promptly support them. (2) On the other hand, as Japanese consumers are not yet to widely understand the food issues well, it is important to make them involved in the matter through suitable measures. (3) According to a joint press release by Unilever plc and WWF (World Wildlife Fund), they list 50 items of agricultural products with low environmental load, high nutrition, strong risk tolerance of disease/pest and climate change, titled ‘50 future ingredients’. Our company uses those ingredients for our in-flight meals. (Japan GAP Foundation (JGF)) (1) In JGAP and ASIAGAP, certified producers are obliged to submit to the JGF their management plans that will consider environmental aspect and contribute to biodiversity. The JGF conducts monitoring based on biological research. In addition to conventional inspection items, other items such as reduction of greenhouse gas emission and carbon sequestration will be incorporated into the ongoing revised certification. Many fertilizer/pesticide/material manufactures are participating in the scheme as GAP Partners, and therefore we will continue working together. (Food manufacture) (1) We are promoting environmentally friendly approaches. However, there have been cost barriers. Although the supply side promotes the efforts, the demand side would not respond well, which means our efforts have not yet to impact consumers’ purchase behavior. Therefore, a system in which consumers are willing to purchase environmentally friendly products even if prices are a bit high should be established. (2) Producers of agricultural products are making efforts to reduce costs, but it is difficult for a single company to do that, and therefore it is necessary as the whole of Japan to work together including research and development for improving productivity. (Farming Corporation) (1) Regarding organic farming: (i) In Japan, while the organic farming certification standards and its operational standards are extremely high, producers cannot earn the income commensurate with costs and risks (e.g. insufficient yield), which has been a barrier to enter the business; (ii) In the case of small scale farming, their products can be sold at local markets or on electric commerce sites. However, in the case of larger scale farming businesses, sales promotion becomes extremely difficult under the current distribution system for agricultural products. As one of solutions, it is necessary to establish a business model for organic farming through industry-academia collaboration, and based on that, comprehensive efforts are needed including the expansion of production scale and development of new sales channels, and the financial support by the government is also important for that purpose. (Food manufacturer) (1) Our company is working on the production of grapes for Japanese wine. We have heard that utilizing abandoned land can contribute to preserving biodiversity. We would like you to discuss ‘effective use of village mountain (Satoyama)’ at the Food Systems Summit. (1) The dissemination of the certification system for sustainably produced agricultural products is left to the private sector such as NGOs. We need governmental support for raising awareness of the certification through the government network, and also support for our entry into developing countries. (Food delivery business) (1) Our company has been working on CO2 sequestration by applying bio-charcoal to farmland for several years, and sells agricultural products grown on bio-charcoal applied farmland with a branding strategy. (2) We are working on providing environmentally friendly farm products to school meals, conducting farm experience classes by providing opportunity to visit biochar farmlands and its manufacturing plants in order to improve consumers’ awareness toward environmentally friendly farm products.

2021-05-25 04:17:11205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/20335/95

473215251251134142972

NoIn the Japan National Food Systems Dialogue with Consumer Goods Forum held on 9th April 2021, MAFF explained the outline of FSS including the purpose and the key issues of sustainable food system. The participants made comments on that.

234239244248In this dialogue, we discussed challenges and opportunities especially related to Action Track 2.235239244248The meeting with Consumer Goods Forum was held to exchange opinions related to SDGs and sustainable food systems. Main remarks are as follows: - Japan has excellent cold chain technologies and can contribute to the transformation to sustainable food systems. At the same time as the summit, we should take this opportunity to work to disseminate such technologies abroad. - Improving consumer understanding is important for the transformation to sustainable food systems. Food preservatives and food additives are important factors in extending expiration dates. As with pesticides and fertilizers, it requires the correct understanding of consumers for the risk-based proper use.

2021-05-25 13:12:15204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/16441/203

178837319211126513624148721182672825221212124511141116614

The dialogue was a consultative process that fully subscribed to the principles of engagement as outlined in the convenors manual. Different modes of engagement were adopted including keynote speakers and discussion. Keynote speakers were identified and requested to participate in the dialogue. The choice of keynote speakers was to stimulate discussion. The dialogue was moderated to encourage full participationThis was a multi-stakeholder dialogue with participants drawn from different sectors that impact on the university policy engagement space. The dialogue was organized within the framework of the Summit considering the five action tracks and how the food systems in West Africa contribute to the SDG targets. The dialogue builds on a series of regional dialogues convened by the Regional Universities Forum for Capacity Building in Agriculture to establish the link, contribution, and mechanism for university- policy engagement. The dialogue was broadly publicized on the Summit Dialogue Gateway, the Network University members and to other stakeholders. The dialogue further built on the RUFORUM Convening power of Higher agricultural Education, Science Technology and Innovation as part of the trust pact that RUFORUM has developed over the years. Further noting that the convenor. Prof. Adipala Ekwamu ins one of the 100 champions under the Food Systems Summit

Yes

234238239241242243244248249251The dialogue focused on how to grow a regionally Interconnected and Resilient Food Systems in Africa. It acknowledged that the performance of food systems in Africa will require the participation of different but inter-connected actors. Universities and research institutions have a significant role to play at national and regional levels. The dialogue acknowledged that Africa and West Africa in particular is experiencing significant challenges that impact on the performance and how we perceive food systems. Such challenges include: • Increasing human population that reduces the per capita food and generates persistent hunger in the region - yet structural precarity ( scarcity amidst abundance is evident) • Lack of preparedness to shocks that impact on agri-food systems as shown by the COVID-19 syndrome • Increased gap between research and impact235238239240241242243244246248249251Unprecedented convergence of multiple food system disruptors 1. Food consumption habits in a context of demographic transition - disconnect between production and consumption 2. Increasing insecurity undermining development efforts 3. Climate change (lengthy drought, etc..) adverse effects on farming systems 4. And the recent COVID-19 pandemic that has constrained the usual operations within the Agri-food systems Focus at National Level 1. Increase attention on local food economy through local staple foods, local resources and crops and value addition in the agri-food systems 2. Promote farmer-centric approach for better adoption of innovations 3. Partnership among various actors through multi-stakeholder platform for synergistic action 4. Limit food importation and develop better tools and technologies to build our potential 5. Affirmative actions for better land policy that consider women and youth 6. Engage the private sector to promote technologies and engage youth in agri-food systems Youth engagement in agriculture 1. Youth as innovators of new models and tools 2. Interest youth in science and technology of agriculture through the research and technology development for generating information relevant to the farmers 3. Involve youth in training to provide and deliver solutions to the farmers 4. Making finances available and accessible to reorienting the financing arrangements for the young people 5. Policy development and support for exploring the processes and enabling environment e.g. in licensing 6. Support entry into value addition for the youth 7. Get youth interested in high value commodity production which do not require so much labor and less land enterprises Investment Focus 1. Promote auto-financing mechanisms in African countries 2. Establish financing mechanisms that support research for local development 3. Increase investment in research on innovation in agri-food systems and diets 4. Increase investment in development and application of agricultural digital technologies University and Research Institutions Focus 1 Resource mobilization for human capital development that will support food systems research 2. Science must feed the transformation of neglected value chains 3. Support to universities and research institution, but also for innovative and impact-oriented training model 4. Increase focus on practice-oriented training through: • Establishment of hands-on practical units and stations within training institutions to support livelihoods, youth employment and agri-production; and, • Development of enterprises that partner with universities in vocational training of graduates.2362382392412422432462482492502511. Agri-food systems support structures • Understand the obstacles that hinder university/research engagement in food systems • Infrastructure: road connectivity especially in the rural areas to unlock the potential of rural farmers • Address non-agricultural factors such as management of the economy, governance & youth • Policies that help to address issues of trade, and food distribution • Deal with the education system at country level to ensure that youth are exposed to agri-business opportunities 2. Develop human capital to innovate, adopt and enable transformed food systems 3. Increase Locally Relevant Research to create and adapt knowledge to strengthen value chains • Re-orient effort to maximize the benefits of available technologies • Research and innovation to build resilience to shocks and stresses, for example development of drought tolerant varieties, establishing insurance schemes for drought based shocks • Value addition and processing to address post-harvest losses, increase final price • Develop scalable solutions that can be applied across borders 4. Support Multi-stakeholder Platforms to Innovate and Scale to improve food and nutrition security • Focus on smallholder farmers to enable them access inputs, technologies • Continue efforts for sustainable production and consumption 5. Improve Communication, Storing and Sharing technology advances and approaches and make them accessible to policymakers and from farm to table237None

2021-05-26 21:03:59205Stage 3https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/19998/186

2911101

The event as a part of the National Dialogue process serves, to the achievement of the principles of engagement: Act with Urgency, Commit to the Summit, Be Respectful, Recognize Complexity, Embrace Multi-Stakeholder Inclusivity, Complement the Work of Others, and Build Trust. Republic of Turkey, with the participatory approach, contributes to the Summit dialogues at local, national and global scales, which are held to contribute to the achievement of the United Nations (UN) 2030 Agenda and Sustainable Development Goals. So, the problematic-intervention areas, solution suggestions and actions were identified separately with the business community perspective, one of the most important actors of the food systems, on the basis of a pre-discussion virtual meeting, and through an online survey conducted by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Please see below for details of specific aspects of the PrinciplesAt the first stage, a fully-fledged dialogue roadmap for Turkey were prepared, and stakeholder analysis was made, with an aim to support transformation of the food systems through a more sustainable approach with the inclusion of respective stakeholders (with a gender sensitive and participatory approach) at regional, national and local levels, by taking into the account of the schedule determined by UN. Accordingly, on the one hand, the problematic-intervention areas, solution suggestions and actions were determined with a separate dialogue process from perspectives of the business community through virtual meeting and online survey. Also another survey was conducted with different and broader target group and its outputs were analyzed. On the other hand, Turkey prepared Sustainable Food System Country Report-Turkey in English for COMCEC 34th Ministerial Meeting in 2019. In an effort to support national dialogues, the Turkish content of the Report has been updated with inputs from the ministerial departments and other relevant ministries and CSOs. Furthermore, nearly 80 focal points, which were regularly informed and consulted on the dialogues when necessary, were determined from the public sector and NGOs. Moreover, some activities are planned with the aim of - Raising public awareness on sustainable food systems - Ensuring better inclusivity of stakeholders of food sector value chain actors (i.e. primary producers, processors, marketers, food service companies, retailers) and especially those left behind and/or having the risk of being left behind (i.e. women, youngsters, small farmer holders, migrant workers etc.) - Complementing/validating the results of the existing stakeholder analysis and improve the quality and content of the existing baseline report for public consultations on national sustainable and resilient food systems Therefore, national dialogue process reflects specific aspects of the Principles.Raising of awareness on sustainable food system is very important to get more valuable information and opinion from the stakeholders, due to the complexity of the sustainable food systems. Stakeholders from whom information are received on this issue should have at least basic information about what sustainable food system concept means and about why there is a need for transforming and improving food systems and which benefits would be provided with transformation of food systems . Also, it would be beneficial to make stakeholder analysis and involve all relevant actors as a part of sustainable food systems in the dialogue process at different levels (informing, consulting, implementing etc.) to identify realistic problematic areas, the most relevant solutions and implementable actions with the necessary ownership. Also reaching new innovative solutions to improve and transform sustainable food systems and synthesizing with current studies and efforts are another aspects that it should be considered on it.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Major focus of the dialogue was receiving the opinions of the representatives of the largest businesses operating in food industry on the most problematic areas, solution suggestions and concreate action proposals under five action tracks to transform and improve food systems towards achievement of Sustainable Development Goals with the perspectives of the business community. Business Council for Sustainable Development Turkey (BCSD Turkey) was founded under the leadership of 13 private sector entities. The council accepts only corporate membership. BCSD Turkey is the local network and partner of World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) in Turkey, and it is in a strong cooperation with its parent organization. After the pre-discussion meeting with the BCSD Turkey, on providing info on and potential contribution to transformation of sustainable food systems and the Summit, 6 members of BCSD Turkey filled out the online survey form prepared by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, which operates in Bilecik, İstanbul, Adana, Bursa and Eskişehir provinces of Turkey. They recommended the total number of 14 problems and over 25 solutions and actions for five action tracks. The status of the BCSD Turkey members filling out the survey form are multinational corporation, INC. (incorporated company), Company Union and Holding. They briefly operate in the area of beverage, sales and marketing; food and beverage, retail, sales and marketing, personal care industry; food and beverages, sales and marketing; food and special products for babies; industry based on agriculture and food sectors. The following simple open-ended questions were questioned in the survey form to the stakeholders. These are For which action track are you filling out this form? Under action track you have chosen please indicate your problem as a brief text Under action track you have chosen, please define the problem. Please explain solution recommendations for the problem you have defined. According to solutions you have explained, please suggest max 3 concreate actions Stakeholders were requested to fill out this form for maximum three problems, three solutions and actions. The results were analyzed with the appropriate quantitative methods along with the descriptive statistics and simple spatial analysis. The result report was prepared for this survey and the others and made a synthesis. Similar findings were obtained from different target groups.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Given the distribution of main intervention areas determined, Action Track 3 as an intervention area were the mostly defined area by the stakeholders. The distribution of intervention areas is below according to Action Tracks; Under Action Track 1: - Food Supply and Access to Safety and Nutrutious Food (1) - Access to Healthy and Safety Food (1) Under Action Track 2: - Food Loss and Waste (1) Under Action Track 3: - Climate Change (4) - Principles of Sustainable Agriculture (1) - Scarcity and Efficient Use of Water Resources (1) - Sustainability and Optimum Productivity in Food Production Under Action Track 4 - Rural Immigration (1) - Contracting Farming (1) Under Action Track 5 - Social, Economic and Environmental Problems due to Rural Immigration to Cities Triggered by Climate Change (1) - Measure Against Food Crises Induced by Conflicts, Natural Disasters, Climate Change, Outbreaks and Pandemics (1) Action areas are below, - Sustainable Agriculture/Production (7) - Climate Change (3) - Energy Efficiency / Renewable Energy (3) - Decreasing/Reducing the number of Middlemen (3) - Supply/Value Chain (2) - Development/Improvement of Contractual Farming Practices (2) - Recycling (1) - Use of Less Chemical Fertilizer (1) - Food Waste (1)236238239244246248249250AT-1 Summary of Problems by the Stakeholders - Ensuring the Better Food Security and Food Safety - Raising Awareness of the Community on Healthy and Balanced Diet AT-1 Solutions -Improved Access to Safety and Healthy Food, Strengthtening Regulations and Controls on Food Products that do not Meet Food Safety Criteria, Transition to Sustainable Food Labeling (Studies on Infrastructure and Raising Awareness) AT-1 Actions -Improving the agricultural supply chain and reducing of and decreasing the number of middlemen in access to the food -Use and dissemination of sustainable agriculture principles, Making necessary arrangements on contractual farming in order to establihment/strenghtening of cooperation mechanism within the food system, establishment/strengthening of necessary infrastructure and systems for the use of sustainability label AT-2 Summary of Problems by the Stakeholders -Reducing /Preventing Food Waste, Adjusting Food Prices according to Purchasing Power AT-2 Solutions - Raising Awareness on food loss and waste (Turkey's National Strategy Document on Prevention, Reduction and Monitoring of Food Loss and Waste and Its Action Plan can be downloaded from the link of www.gidanikoru.com) AT-2 Actions -Reducing household waste236241242244246247248249251AT-4 Summary of Problems by the Stakeholders -Productivity problems in agriculture production resulting in immigrations from rural to the cities -Need for regulating and providing subsidies for contractual farming AT-4 Solutions -Encouragement of young people and women for agricultural production, dissemination trainings that allow the farmers to learn and apply more productive and new production techniques with cooperation between public and private sectors, supporting and raising awareness of all stakeholders - More associating national Farmer Registration System with Contractual Farming and transition to traceable system in agricultural production AT-4 Actions -Giving trainings on sustainable production -Establish a production chain sustainable, traceable and contractual farming AT-5 Summary of Problems by the Stakeholders -Fair access to the food -Social, economic and environmental problems resulting from rural immigration induced by climate change AT-5 Solutions -Considering sustainable agriculture principles legislation. - Supporting the economic development of farmers in sustainable agriculture areas with a view to reducing / preventing migration from rural to urban - Increasing aids to alleviate the problem of hunger under the leadership of humanitarian organizations and the United Nations AT-5 Actions -Considering sustainable agriculture legislation -Ensuring that future generations benefit from equally scarce resources by using sustainable production technologies.236240244246248249AT-3 Summary of Problems by the Stakeholders - Environmentally Friendly Food production - The need to develop systems that are resistant to climate and support sustainable food production - Achievement of SDGs - Emergency transformation need for taking measures against soil erosion, increasing problem of packaging waste water scarcity and climate change - Climate change associated with the agricultural activities - Inefficient use of water resources and high water consumption in industry - Increase in carbon emissions due to inefficiencies of energy resources use AT-3 Solutions - Increasing the joint working platforms for the private sector, unions, cooperatives and state agencies, expanding the scope of legal regulations and increasing incentives on GAP - Sustainable agriculture and reduction of global greenhouse emissions, access to safe water, obtaining raw materials from sustainable sources, supporting local farmers - Commitment to achieve net zero emissions by 2040 and reduction of absolute emission by 40% by 2030 (made by multinational Company), zero waste in production, renewable energy, obtaining energy and fertilizer from food waste - Continuing to contribute for and implement necessary actions for UN SDGs - Increasing use and dissemination of techniques and technologies that use natural resources efficiently and provide high efficiency in agricultural production - Increasing the potential of obtaining biogas and energy from organic wastes, especially from animal production wastes, as cost-effective and technology efficient, dissemination of implementation on collecting organic wastes by registered waste facilities, dissemination of use of organic and organomineral fertilizers in agricultural production to benefit from the carbon fixation potential of agricultural soils and to ensure circularity in food systems -Environmental friendly production and preserving critical ecosystems to conserve biodiversity, protect land and water, reduce food loss and waste, limit human induced contributions to climate change, produce solutions along food value chain with a view to reducing emissions and increase carbon sequestration - Controlling water consumption in agricultural production and increasing production efficiency, controlling and reducing water consumption in industrial facilities and evaluating alternative resources -Working on reducing energy losses and leakages in the industry -Encouraging the reduction of carbon footprint along value chain by making sector-based comparisons, making regulations that require the use of high-energy efficiency units and equipment, implementing additional incentive mechanisms for the use of renewable energy resources AT-3 Actions -Encouraging Sustainable Agriculture Methods with Food Industry, Supporting Renewable Energy Production, disseminating training and incentive mechanisms to increase the use of organic and organomineral fertilizers as a biogas plant output -Use of low emission technology and use of less fertilizer, acceleration of the transition to renewable energy in the entire logistics chain, increasing the rate of recycled plastic used in packaging, and implementing policies to be created in parallel with these goals with the support of the private sector -Considering enactment of sustainable agriculture legislation -Ensuring that future generations benefit from equally scarce resources by using sustainable production technologies. -Preparation of a roadmap on climate change related to agricultural activities -Energy Efficiency, reduction of carbon emissions -Reducing water consumption and increasing water use efficiency in industrial facilities237N/A

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/2021-UNFSS-TURKEY.pdfhttp://www.skdturkiye.org/enhttps://gidanikoru.com/

2021-05-26 22:52:24204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/9295/203

01140216473151622216216213662323126323166

1) Se sumaron cuatro co-organizadores, en representación de diversos sectores, buscando tener mayor representatividad y cobertura. 2) El diálogo tuvo como foco discutir y construir la agenda pendiente para impulsar el rol de la bioeconomía en la transformación de los sistemas alimentarios de ALC. 3) Los grupos de trabajo – discusión - se pensaron y organizaron de manera que se promoviera el diálogo abierto y la participación de todos. Además, se buscó que la discusión y construcción de propuestas estuviera alineada a los action tracks de la Cumbre de sistemas alimentarios. 4) Acordamos que una vez finalizado el diálogo utilizaríamos los insumos generados para seguir construyendo participativamente las propuestas y recomendaciones, de manera que pudiéramos ponerlas a disposición de la Cumbre.• Los organizadores y co-organizadores involucraron a sus técnicos y especialistas. Además, invitaron a los socios en diversos campos (políticas, academia, ciencia y tecnología, emprendimientos, empresas privadas del agro, cooperación internacional, etc.) • Más del 70% del tiempo del evento se destinó a los grupos de trabajo, donde se discutió libremente sobre opciones de políticas, iniciativas, proyectos e inversiones. • Los facilitadores de los grupos de trabajo buscaron en todo momento equilibrar los tiempos de participación y dar voz a todos los integrantes. Además, se contó con tomadores de nota que iban sistematizando los acuerdos y divergencias resultantes del grupo, que después eran puestos a validación/retroalimentación. • Las conclusiones/recomendaciones resultantes del diálogo serán puestos a discusión/validación de los co-organizadores y se espera sirvan de base para la construcción de propuestas de game changing solutions.

NoEl diálogo inició con un acto de apertura y bienvenida a cargo del Director General del IICA, Sr. Manuel Otero. Posteriormente, Hugo Chavarría (Gerente del Programa de Bioeconomía y Desarrollo Productivo del IICA) realizó una presentación que pretendía establecer el marco general sobre las potenciales contribuciones de la bioeconomía al fortalecimiento y transformación de los sistemas alimentarios de ALC. Acto seguido, la plenaria se dividió en cinco grupos de trabajo, a saber: 1) inversiones en investigación, desarrollo e innovación, 2) políticas públicas y estrategias para la bioeconomía; 3) instrumentos para el fomento de mercados para la bioeconomía; 4) desarrollo de emprendimientos de base biológica (bioemprendimientos); y 5) el rol de la cooperación internacional. En cada uno de estos grupos de trabajo se fomentó la discusión abierta y participativa a partir de tres preguntas base: 1) ¿Cuánto ha avanzado la región en cada uno de los temas específicos y cuales esfuerzos son dignos de reconocer?; 2) ¿Qué falta por hacer en cada tema? ¿Cuáles son los retos y tareas pendientes?; 3) ¿Cómo hacerlo? ¿Con quién? ¿Cuáles son los pasos por realizar y los actores a involucrar? ¿Cuál es el rol de cada actor? En cada grupo, que contó con la participación de entre 07 y 35 integrantes, se fomentó que los participantes pensaran más allá de la situación actual y propusieran – desde cada uno de los temas de análisis - los pasos necesarios para promover y aprovechar a la bioeconomía como elemento transformador de los sistemas alimentarios de la región. Cada grupo contó con un facilitador y un tomador de notas que tuvieron las siguientes responsabilidades: Facilitador: Fue el responsable de garantizar que todos los participantes del grupo tuvieran la oportunidad de contribuir de manera significativa y de que los demás escuchaban sus puntos de vista. El facilitador garantizó que en sus grupos de debate se abordara el tema específico y que la discusión se centrara en las preguntas guía. Tomador de notas: Fue el responsable de crear una cuenta en Menti para realizar la votación de las preguntas de las rondas 2 y 3. Durante el diálogo, se encargó de identificar, sistematizar y volcar en la plataforma virtual las respuestas proporcionadas por el facilitador a las preguntas mencionadas. Posteriormente los participantes ranquearon las opciones presentadas. A partir de estos insumos, el tomador de notas preparó una PPT que fue utilizada por el facilitador para presentar en plenaria los acuerdos y desacuerdos, y resultados de la votación.

234238239240241242244245246248249250251El evento tuvo dos objetivos. El primero de ellos tenía relación con la validación y retroalimentación de los argumentos construidos por el IICA e ICABR sobre las contribuciones de la bioeconomía al fortalecimiento y transformación de los sistemas agroalimentarios de América Latina y el Caribe (ALC), las cuales fueron plasmadas en el artículo publicado por el Comité Científico de la Cumbre en su plataforma virtual (disponible en https://bit.ly/2RwEIi6). El segundo objetivo estaba relacionado con la construcción de la agenda pendiente. Como bien lo habían recomendado varios colegas y expertos, además de demostrar las contribuciones de la bioeconomía al fortalecimiento de los sistemas alimentarios, era indispensable trabajar junto con todos los actores de la región en conceptualizar y construir las políticas, estrategias e inversiones requeridas para aprovechar las potencialidades que la bioeconomía ofrece, sobre todo para una región mega-biodiversa como lo es ALC.235238239240241242244245246248249250251En cada uno de los grupos de trabajo los participantes discutieron inicialmente sobre los retos y tareas pendientes, para posteriormente centrarse en la recomendación de las políticas, estrategias, proyectos e inversiones requeridas para aumentar el potencial de contribución de la bioeconomía a los sistemas alimentarios de ALC. En lo referente a los retos y tareas pendientes, los grupos de trabajo hicieron referencia a: 1. Normativa nacional e internacional que no facilita, dificulta (e incluso imposibilita) la producción, registro y/o comercio de tecnologías y de productos biológicos que son más sostenibles ambientalmente y que permiten una mayor agregación de valor (bio-productos y bio-servicios). 2. Desconocimiento sobre el potencial que tienen los países, territorios y cadenas para aumentar la eficiencia y la sostenibilidad en la producción y en la valorización (industrialización) de la biomasa y biodiversidad, a través de las nuevas tecnologías e innovaciones de la bioeconomía. 3. Poco conocimiento sobre nuevas tecnologías e innovaciones de la bioeconomía que permiten incrementar la eficiencia y sostenibilidad en producción y aprovechamiento de la biomasa (primaria y residual) y la biodiversidad 4. Poco desarrollo de mercados locales de: a) bioproductos que permiten incrementar la sostenibilidad y/o la agregación de valor de la biomasa y la biodiversidad; b) tecnologías e innovaciones de la bioeconomía que fomentan la eficiencia y sostenibilidad en la producción e industrialización de la biomasa y biodiversidad. 5. Pocos – o nulos – instrumentos financieros y fiscales que incentiven a los agentes del sistema alimentario a ser más eficientes y sostenibles en la producción e industrialización de la biomasa y/o biodiversidad. 6. Pocos servicios de apoyo que promuevan la adopción de tecnologías e innovaciones de la bioeconomía que permitirían aumentar la eficiencia y la sostenibilidad en la producción e industrialización de la biomasa y la biodiversidad. 7. Bajas capacidades – organizativas, empresariales, tecnológicas, etc. – en los actores de las cadenas agrícolas (sobre todo los productores) y en los territorios rurales, lo que les impide aprovechar las potencialidades de transformación que les ofrece la bioeconomía. 8. Poca articulación y vinculación entre: a) la investigación generada por los institutos públicos y la academia con las necesidades de la empresa privada; b) la investigación que realiza la gran empresa con necesidades y potencial de las pequeñas empresas. 9. Los investigadores y/o bioemprendedores cuentan con muy poca infraestructura y equipamiento para pilotaje y escalamiento, así como bajos ecosistemas nacionales y territoriales para la creación, desarrollo y maduración de sus proyectos e iniciativas. 10. Pocos esquemas de financiamiento e inversión para proyectos de la bioeconomía que promuevan una mayor eficiencia y sostenibilidad en la producción y/o industrialización de la biomasa y biodiversidad (por ejemplo, fondos perdidos -no reembolsables-, capital de riesgo y capital semilla). 11. Los inversionistas y tomadores de decisión de entes financieros desconocen el potencial de la bioeconomía, y de los negocios que permitirían incrementar la eficiencia y sostenibilidad de la producción e industrialización de la biomasa. 12. Inexistencia de redes productivas, industriales y comerciales en los territorios rurales para operativizar (llevar a terreno) los negocios de la bioeconomía que permitirían incrementar la eficiencia y la sostenibilidad de la producción e industrialización de la biomasa.236238239240241242244245246248249250251Una vez identificados los retos y limitaciones, los cinco grupos de trabajo discutieron sobre las recomendaciones de políticas, proyectos e inversiones requeridas por la región. Si bien es cierto el debate se dividió en cinco temas separados (I+D+i; públicas para la bioeconomía; fomento de mercados; bioemprendimientos; rol de la cooperación internacional), preferimos ordenar y sistematizar las concusiones y recomendaciones dado que muchas eran coincidentes y se complementaban. En términos generales, una vez fueron ordenadas y sistematizadas, las recomendaciones se resumen en los siguientes 13 puntos: 1. Sensibilización, conocimiento y convencimiento sobre las oportunidades y potencial que ofrece la bioeconomía para la transformación de los sistemas alimentarios (enfocados en actores del sector público, academia, privado y sociedad civil). 2. Generación, sistematización y gestión de información y evidencia sobre el potencial (económico, social y ambiental) y los riesgos de la bioeconomía como insumo para la toma de decisiones políticas y de inversión privada. 3. Construcción (además de coordinación y armonización) de normativa y reglamentación internacional, nacional y local que viabilice el aprovechamiento de las tecnologías de la bioeconomía y promueva las nuevas industrializaciones de la biomasa, asegurando además su seguridad y sostenibilidad 4. Construcción y fomento de grupos multidisciplinarios impulsores de la bioeconomía (gobierno, academia, empresa privada, organismos internacionales y sociedad civil), que sirvan como base para la planificación y construcción de agendas, políticas, institucionalidad e inversiones públicas. 5. Formación de capacidades organizativas, empresariales y tecnológicas en los actores del sistema alimentario (principalmente los productores agroindustriales), para que puedan aprovechar las innovaciones de la bioeconomía para aumentar la eficiencia y sostenibilidad de la producción e industrialización de la biomasa y la biodiversidad. 6. Construcción de instrumentos de política y de mercado para fomentar el desarrollo de los mercados de la bioeconomía, que favorecen una producción e industrialización de biomasa y biodiversidad más eficiente y sostenible. 7. Fomento de los servicios de apoyo (público – privados) para que los actores del sistema alimentario puedan adoptar y utilizar las nuevas tecnologías e innovaciones de la bioeconomía. 8. Fomento de mercados nacionales e internacionales de tecnologías e innovaciones que permiten una producción y aprovechamientos más eficiente y sostenible de la biomasa y biodiversidad. 9. Construcción y fortalecimiento de alianzas público - privados para la inversión en I+D+i en nuevas tecnologías que respondan a las necesidades y potencialidades de los actores del sistema alimentario, y que permitan una industrialización más eficiente y sostenible de la biomasa y biodiversidad de la región. 10. Fortalecimiento del capital humano de los investigadores (académicos y científicos) en nuevas ciencias y tecnologías que promueven la eficiencia y sostenibilidad en la producción y valorización de la biomasa y la biodiversidad. 11. Construcción y fomento de ecosistemas para el emprendedurismo, y de mecanismos público – privados para el financiamiento e inversión para negocios de la bioeconomía con potencial. 12. Construcción y fomento de las nuevas redes de valor de la bioeconomía en los territorios rurales, enlazando a los diferentes actores del sistema alimentario para promover un aprovechamiento e industrialización más eficiente y sostenible de la biomasa y la biodiversidad disponible. 13. Mayor impulso de modelos de producción, industrialización y consumo más eficientes y sostenibles (bioeconomía), por parte de las organizaciones de cooperación internacional y de las instituciones supranacionales encargadas de definir la normativa comercial internacional.237238239240241242244245246248249250Los sistemas alimentarios primero: en un grupo en específico se mencionó que si bien es cierto es muy importante discutir (y acordar) cómo potenciar la contribución de la bioeconomía en ALC, de cara a la Cumbre es necesario iniciar primero analizando cuáles son las fortalezas y cuellos de botella de los sistemas alimentarios de la región, para posteriormente discutir como la bioeconomía puede contribuir en solventar o fortalecer cada uno de estos temas. En términos concretos, advirtió que la estructura del diálogo (y del documento que sirvió como base) tenía puesta la atención principal en la bioeconomía, sin analizar con suficiente detalle primero los retos pendientes en la transformación de los sistemas alimentarios (valga aclarar además que el comentario no fue compartido por todos).

2021-05-26 23:11:32205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/13101/60

0052144323531

En este diálogo hemos decidido invitar a los representantes de todas las instituciones públicas que trabajan dieta y nutrición o que dentro de sus funciones se encuentran aspectos relacionados al mismo para obtener respuestas desde una óptica gubernamental. Este diálogo ha tenido 2 mesas, cada una con un facilitador que ha hecho las preguntas y las ha escrito, y un administrador que se ha encargado de dar directrices a los facilitadores. Tanto los facilitadores como el administrador del diálogo son personas expertas en el área para garantizar la conducción del diálogo hacia los resultados esperados. Antes de iniciar el diálogo, el administrador dio unas palabras introductorias en donde explicó el motivo de la celebración del diálogo, qué es la cumbre sobre los sistemas alimentarios y qué se espera de cada participante. El participante contaba con un tiempo considerable para dar sus opiniones y sus respuestas eran recogidas anónimamente (para asegurar la confianza y transparencia de las respuestas.Como el diálogo se ha realizado con personas con facultades de toma de decisiones de políticas públicas, tanto los participantes como sus organizadores, que han podido conocer el punto de vista de otros actores gubernamentales, que saben las deficiencias y fortalezas del tema en el país, que han podido aportar sus opiniones para buscar soluciones prácticas y han reflejado compromiso para ponerlas en práctica, hemos promovido actuar con urgencia, asumir los compromisos de la Cumbre, ser respetuosos, reconocer la complejidad, complementar la labor de los demás y promover la confianza.Tomar en cuenta la importancia de adoptar un enfoque inclusivo de múltiples grupos de interés, debido a que de esa forma los resultados son diversos y ricos en contenidos. Asimismo, es importante enfatizar la asunción de los compromisos que solo se logra aportando respuestas prácticas y precisas, lo que conlleva a la importancia de contar con personas especializadas en el área que garanticen el cumplimiento de los resultados esperados.

NoPara poder obtener los resultados esperados, hemos decidido convocar a un grupo de personas del sector público para participar en los diálogos nacionales sobre el cambio climático y su impacto en la producción agropecuaria dominicana, la producción y suministro de alimentos en la República Dominicana post pandemia COVID-19, y la dieta y la nutrición de la población dominicana como pilar clave en el desarrollo humano y social, diálogo objeto del presente formulario. Los tres diálogos se realizaron de forma simultánea y contaban con un facilitador en cada una de sus mesas, y un administrador por cada diálogo que dictaba las directrices de las preguntas y respuestas. Los facilitadores y administradores contaban con una guía de preguntas que variaban según el tema de debate. En cuanto al diálogo sobre dieta y nutrición, el administrador del diálogo dio unas palabras de bienvenida donde abordó temas sobre el proceso de la cumbre, la importancia de realizar el diálogo, el modo de debate y los resultados esperados. Cabe mencionar que los facilitadores y administradores son personas expertas en el área, lo que garantizaba la conducción de las respuestas hacia los resultados esperados. Cada participante contaba con un tiempo considerable de exponer sus ideas y las mismas fueron recogidas anónimamente. Con esas medidas se busca el cumplimiento de los principios de actuación. Al final de cada debate, el administrador recogía las conclusiones de cada mesa y las leía, para que de esa forma todos los participantes conocieran las opiniones de todos. No surgió tema de divergencia.

234238241242243244245246247248249250Diálogo Nacional - La dieta y la nutrición de la población dominicana como pilar clave en el desarrollo humano y social: Enfocado en la discusión gubernamental sobre los principales factores que inciden en la dieta y nutrición de los dominicanos, el estado nutricional de la poblacional y cómo mejorar la alimentación. Una perspectiva pública de la problemática con un sentido crítico.235238241242243245246247248249250251Las respuestas en las mesas fueron similares. Entre las respuestas encontramos que la identificación de los problemas sociales se percibe de forma similar siendo la educación alimentaria y nutricional (EAN) uno de los principales ausentes en la población dominicana. Ante los problemas de la malnutrición en el país, se hizo notar en los grupos de dialogo la identificación de la educación alimentaria como un cambio cultural para reforzar la cartera de nutrientes que recibe la población dominicana. Tanto el estrato social como los beneficios recibidos por el Estado dominicano siendo también parte primordial de los mismos. En resumen, los participantes del diálogo consideran que la falta de educación es la principal problemática ante los problemas de desnutrición en el país. Falta de voluntad política, informaciones relevantes y comprensibles impiden que los dominicanos tengan una buena base de información antes de consumir productos. De igual forma, en el país las comidas con poco valor nutricional son desproporcionalmente más asequible que las comidas hechas con productos orgánicos y saludables. Asimismo, los participantes entienden que la pirámide que tenemos establecida cumple con los suficientes nutrientes; pero la distribución de los micronutrientes es incorrecta, hay un alto consumo de comidas chatarra (alta en grasas, azucares y grasas), bajo consumo de frutas y vegetales y la dieta es muy cargada de carbohidratos.236238241242243245246247248251Los participantes entienden que los 3 principales problemas que originan la malnutrición en República Dominicana son pobreza, falta de educación (cambios en las costumbres, cambios culturales) y voluntad política. La falta de EAN en la población sobre propiedades nutritivas de los alimentos, la dieta no equilibrada ni balanceada, la forma de cocción no adecuada y el aumento de consumo de comida “chatarra”, grasas, sal, azúcar juegan un papel importante. Para contrarrestar lo anterior proponen adoptar las siguientes medidas: -Reforzamiento de investigaciones y estadísticas. -Sistema educativo (ingreso en las plantillas educativas, nutrición como materia). -Sostenibilidad en el tiempo de las políticas aplicadas. -Implementar educación alimentaria y nutricional desde el nivel inicial hasta nivel superior (alimentación saludable y actividad física). -Implementación del etiquetado frontal de advertencia nutricional para que la población conozca los alimentos que tienen alto contenido en sal, grasas, azúcar. -Alimentos nutritivos y esenciales en la dieta, queden protegidos libres de impuestos (yogurt, cereales fortificados, productos integrales, frutos secos, entre otros). -Crear fuentes de empleo. -Implementar nutrición como materia desde el nivel básico. -Importancia de revisión del programa de alimentación escolar. -Mejorar la ideología cultural explicando el porqué de cada cosa. -La sostenibilidad de los proyectos (en ejecución). -Fomentar la práctica de consumo de alimentos saludables en las familias. -Incentivar a los comercios para ofertar alimentos saludables para que oferten alimentos saludables. -Garantizar que los alimentos sean sanos y nutritivos desde el cultivo a la mesa. -Incentivo de actividad física y deportes para toda la población -Alianza con medios de comunicación masivos para que aporten una cuota de responsabilidad social para que comuniquen sobre la importancia de alimentación saludable y actividad física.

2021-05-26 23:23:37205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/13285/60

4925101515

En este diálogo hemos decidido invitar a los representantes de todas las instituciones públicas que trabajan cambio climático o que dentro de sus funciones se encuentran aspectos relacionados al mismo para obtener respuestas desde una óptica gubernamental. Este diálogo ha tenido 3 mesas, cada una con un facilitador que ha hecho las preguntas y las ha escrito, y un administrador que se ha encargado de dar directrices a los facilitadores. Tanto los facilitadores como el administrador del diálogo son personas expertas en el área para garantizar la conducción del diálogo hacia los resultados esperados. Antes de iniciar el diálogo, el administrador dio unas palabras introductorias en donde explicó el motivo de la celebración del diálogo, qué es la cumbre sobre los sistemas alimentarios y qué se espera de cada participante. El participante contaba con un tiempo considerable para dar sus opiniones y sus respuestas eran recogidas anónimamente (para asegurar la confianza y transparencia de las respuestas.Como el diálogo se ha realizado con personas con facultades de toma de decisiones de políticas públicas, tanto los participantes como sus organizadores, que han podido conocer el punto de vista de otros actores gubernamentales, que saben las deficiencias y fortalezas del tema en el país, que han podido aportar sus opiniones para buscar soluciones prácticas y han reflejado compromiso para ponerlas en práctica, hemos promovido actuar con urgencia, asumir los compromisos de la Cumbre, ser respetuosos, reconocer la complejidad, complementar la labor de los demás y promover la confianza.Tomar en cuenta la importancia de adoptar un enfoque inclusivo de múltiples grupos de interés, debido a que de esa forma los resultados son diversos y ricos en contenidos. Asimismo, es importante enfatizar la asunción de los compromisos que solo se logra aportando respuestas prácticas y precisas, lo que conlleva a la importancia de contar con personas especializadas en el área que garanticen el cumplimiento de los resultados esperados.

NoPara poder obtener los resultados esperados, hemos decidido convocar a un grupo de personas del sector público para participar en los diálogos nacionales sobre la dieta y la nutrición de la población dominicana como pilar clave en el desarrollo humano y social, la producción y suministro de alimentos en la República Dominicana post pandemia COVID-19 y el cambio climático y su impacto en la producción agropecuaria dominicana, diálogo objeto del presente formulario. Los tres diálogos se realizaron de forma simultánea y contaban con un facilitador en cada una de sus mesas, y un administrador por cada diálogo que dictaba las directrices de las preguntas y respuestas. Los facilitadores y administradores contaban con una guía de preguntas que variaban según el tema de debate. En cuanto al diálogo sobre cambio climático, la administradora del diálogo realizó una presentación en donde abordó temas sobre el proceso de la cumbre, la importancia de realizar el diálogo, el modo de debate y los resultados esperados. Cabe mencionar que los facilitadores y administradores son personas expertas en el área lo que garantizaba la conducción de las respuestas hacia los resultados esperados. Cada participante contaba con un tiempo considerable de exponer sus ideas y las mismas fueron recogidas anónimamente. Con esas medidas se busca el cumplimiento de los principios de actuación. Al final de cada debate, el administrador recogía las conclusiones de cada mesa y las leía, para que de esa forma todos los participantes conocieran las opiniones de todos. No surgió tema de divergencia.

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Un sistema alimentario sostenible es aquel que garantiza la seguridad alimentaria y la nutrición de todas las personas de tal forma que no se pongan en riesgo las bases económicas, sociales y ambientales de éstas para las futuras generaciones. Esto significa que siempre es rentable, garantizando la sostenibilidad económica; que ofrece amplios beneficios para la sociedad, asegurando la sostenibilidad social; y que tiene un efecto positivo o neutro en los recursos naturales, salvaguardando la sostenibilidad del medio ambiente. En el caso de este diálogo, la vía de acción correspondiente es: La adopción de modalidades de consumo sostenibles: fomentar la demanda de los consumidores de alimentos producidos de manera sostenible, fortalecer las cadenas de valor locales, mejorar la nutrición y promover la reutilización y el reciclado de los recursos alimentarios, especialmente entre los más vulnerables. Esta Vía de Acción reconoce que debemos acabar con los hábitos de consumo de alimentos que comportan despilfarro; también reconoce que debemos facilitar la transición hacia dietas con alimentos más nutritivos que requieran menos recursos para su producción y transporte. De igual forma, la impulsión de la producción favorable a la naturaleza que optimiza el uso de los recursos ambientales en la producción, el procesamiento y la distribución de alimentos, y reduce así la pérdida de biodiversidad, la contaminación, el uso del agua, la degradación del suelo y las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Se han identificado puntos de mejoras en cuanto a acciones tomadas por el gobierno, por ejemplo, la comunicación eficaz de los diferentes departamentos de las instituciones públicas que trabajan el tema, mejorar la tecnología aplicada para mitigar los efectos del cambio climático, establecer acciones que sirvan como refuerzo ante la ocurrencia de fenómenos atmosféricos. De igual forma, los participantes han coincidido en la importancia que tiene la celebración de este tipo de actividades, debido al flujo de ideas diferentes y puntos de vistas diversos. Asimismo, se debe aumentar la capacidad de mayores registros de las estaciones meteorológicas para contar con más datos y mejorar la cobertura de registros in situ en aquellos sitios o regiones que muestran evidencias de cambios en el régimen climático y sufren sus impactos; para mejorar la calidad de los datos e inclusive ampliar las series de tiempo al lograr digitalizar registros que quizás permanezcan en papel; y para generar mayor confianza en los resultados de los estudios sobre cambio climático y variabilidad climática. Establecer un banco digital de información climática es esencial, donde la República Dominicana sea un referente a nivel regional e internacional en materia de intercambio de información, así como en el acceso a información de registros climáticos históricos, ejercicios y estudios de escenarios de clima así como análisis de los impactos por fenómenos climáticos, facilitando la homologación de criterios y el contraste entre los distintos resultados, entre otros aspectos.236238239240241242244245246247248249Es necesario crear medidas tendentes aumentar la oferta o disponibilidad de agua mediante la construcción de nueva infraestructura hidráulica como son pozos, obras de toma o diques y presas; Implementar medidas tendentes a reducir o manejar la demanda de agua, se incluyen aquí las medidas de cambios de cultivos y calendario de siembra, y también medidas de tipo estructural como el revestimiento de canales; medidas orientadas a lograr mejoras en el marco legal e institucional teniendo en cuenta el cambio climático y la variabilidad. Tecnología, Investigación, Capacitación; acciones de buenas prácticas agrícolas por los productores; medidas en las que los agricultores toman decisiones para modificar el manejo de los cultivos y sus sembradíos. Tales como: Buenas Prácticas Agrícolas (BPA); Buenas Prácticas de Manufactura (BPM); Manejo Integrado de Plagas (MIP) y Manejo integrado del cultivo (MIC), con el fin de proporcionar un marco de agricultura sustentable; aplicar medidas de adaptación; capacitación al productor en conservación del suelo; uso adecuado de los pesticidas e insumos; uso y aplicación de la tecnología en el contexto climatológico; orientación para impedir la deforestación; realizar exámenes de agroquímicos y plaguicidas a través del departamento de sanidad vegetal del Ministerio de Agricultura; maximizar el potencial de las tierras que actualmente están en producción; realiza una distribución de suelos productivos según características de las zonas; educación a los productores sobre cambio climático; respetar el ciclo de las plantas (rotación de ganado). Los participantes concluyeron que es importante adoptar las siguientes medidas: - Readecuar el sistema del seguro agropecuario para que incluya cobertura sobre los efectos no tradicionales del cambio climático y masificar el uso de este. - Implementar la Ley de agua. - Implementar práctica de conservación del suelo. - Normativa para el control sobre el uso de pendiente para la producción agrícola. - Investigación y desarrollo en la agropecuaria (transferencia de tecnología). - Programa de educación a nivel de educación básica y de grado sobre el cambio climático. - Creación de la mesa agroclimática manejada por los productores organizados e independientes. - Promoción y adopción de la agricultura climáticamente inteligente. - Actualizar la Ley del Medio Ambiente 64-00 a las nuevas convenciones suscritas para que se aborde el efecto del cambio climático de una manera ampliada. - Realizar levantamiento sobre los marcos legales para la gestión del clima y sus efectos para que impacten el sector agropecuario e identificar los puntos de mejoras según las mejores prácticas internacionales. - Uso inteligente de la rotación de cultivos (todos los ciclos). - Zonificación de la siembra ajustada a las condiciones de suelo, impacto del clima, regio, entre otras variables de los cultivos según la característica de estos. - El ordenamiento territorial, la preservación de las áreas agrícolas y el uso eficiente del agua, son tres pilares que deben ser fortalecidos, desde el ámbito normativo y de la ejecución del poder ejecutivo. - Introducción en los currículos básicos y secundarios de las asignaturas con respecto al cambio climático y medio ambiente. - Los productores agropecuarios deben involucrarse en diferentes técnicas de adaptación, dentro de las cuáles podemos citar: o El uso de variedades tolerantes a las inundaciones de alto rendimiento. o Rotación de cultivos y siembra combinada de varios cultivos. o Establecimiento de sistema de drenaje adecuados, adaptables y también de los drenajes externos. o Diversificación de los ingresos generados por la actividad agropecuaria. o Desarrollo y uso de variedades resistentes a la sequía. o Asociar a los pequeños productores para reducir costos administrativos y los impactos del cambio climático. - Estudios permanentes de los efectos del cambio climático en la agricultura. - Investigar los coeficientes de los cultivos. - Investigar los estados fenológicos y las variaciones generada por los efectos del cambio climático.

2021-05-26 23:37:06205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/13646/60

2351651111

En este diálogo hemos decidido invitar a los representantes de todas las instituciones públicas que trabajan producción y suministro de alimentos, o que dentro de sus funciones se encuentran aspectos relacionados al mismo para obtener respuestas desde una óptica gubernamental. Este diálogo ha tenido 4 mesas, cada una con un facilitador que ha hecho las preguntas y las ha escrito, y un administrador que se ha encargado de dar directrices a los facilitadores. Tanto los facilitadores como el administrador del diálogo son personas expertas en el área para garantizar la conducción del diálogo hacia los resultados esperados. Antes de iniciar el diálogo, el administrador dio unas palabras introductorias en donde explicó el motivo de la celebración del diálogo, qué es la cumbre sobre los sistemas alimentarios y qué se espera de cada participante. El participante contaba con un tiempo considerable para dar sus opiniones y sus respuestas eran recogidas anónimamente (para asegurar la confianza y transparencia de las respuestas.Como el diálogo se ha realizado con personas con facultades de toma de decisiones de políticas públicas, tanto los participantes como sus organizadores, que han podido conocer el punto de vista de otros actores gubernamentales, que saben las deficiencias y fortalezas del tema en el país, que han podido aportar sus opiniones para buscar soluciones prácticas y han reflejado compromiso para ponerlas en práctica, hemos promovido actuar con urgencia, asumir los compromisos de la Cumbre, ser respetuosos, reconocer la complejidad, complementar la labor de los demás y promover la confianza.Tomar en cuenta la importancia de adoptar un enfoque inclusivo de múltiples grupos de interés, debido a que de esa forma los resultados son diversos y ricos en contenidos. Asimismo, es importante enfatizar la asunción de los compromisos que solo se logra aportando respuestas prácticas y precisas, lo que conlleva a la importancia de contar con personas especializadas en el área que garanticen el cumplimiento de los resultados esperados.

NoPara poder obtener los resultados esperados, hemos decidido convocar a un grupo de personas del sector público para participar en los diálogos nacionales sobre el cambio climático y su impacto en la producción agropecuaria dominicana, la dieta y la nutrición de la población dominicana como pilar clave en el desarrollo humano y social y la producción y suministro de alimentos en la República Dominicana post pandemia COVID-19, diálogo objeto del presente formulario. Los tres diálogos se realizaron de forma simultánea y contaban con un facilitador en cada una de sus mesas, y un administrador por cada diálogo que dictaba las directrices de las preguntas y respuestas. Los facilitadores y administradores contaban con una guía de preguntas que variaban según el tema de debate. En cuanto al diálogo sobre producción y suministro, la administradora del diálogo realizó una presentación en donde abordó temas sobre el proceso de la cumbre, la importancia de realizar el diálogo, el modo de debate y los resultados esperados. Cabe mencionar que los facilitadores y administradores son personas expertas en el área lo que garantizaba la conducción de las respuestas hacia los resultados esperados. Cada participante contaba con un tiempo considerable de exponer sus ideas y las mismas fueron recogidas anónimamente. Con esas medidas se busca el cumplimiento de los principios de actuación. Al final de cada debate, la administradora recogía las conclusiones de cada mesa y las leía, para que de esa forma todos los participantes conocieran las opiniones de todos. No surgió tema de divergencia.

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Los sistemas alimentarios nacionales han requerido adaptación, resiliencia y capacidad de ajuste para enfrentar la pandemia COVID-19. No solo en los aspectos de regulación de la producción sino tambien en toda la cadena de valor y comercialización. Por lo anterior, Lograr las más diversas, inclusivas propuestas para mejorar los sistemas alimentarios nacionales son requeridos para prepararnos a la recuperación de los aspectos económicos y sociales de la nación.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250Los participantes del diálogo consideran que hace falta incentivar la producción primaria a nivel nacional, hacer un levantamiento en cada comunidad para cuantificar necesidades y priorizar las ayudas, involucrar a las autoridades de las comunidades en el proceso para que asuman una responsabilidad con las comunidades que representan de manera que se enfrenten los problemas vitales, se procedan a las soluciones y se dé bue uso de los recursos que se dispongan, mejorar aspectos de almacenamiento cuando los alimentos sean perecederos, facilitar herramientas para garantizar mayor producción de rubros alimenticios en función de la reactivación económica (mayor facilidad de créditos, asistencia técnica y transporte).236238239240241242243244245246247248249250Para mejorar la cadena de abasto y que la misma sea resiliente, los participantes entienden que se debe: -Incentivar la producción primaria de la canasta básica a nivel nacional para que haya mayor acceso a los alimentos. -Diagnosticar la estructura logística, productiva, y de procesamiento regional para cuantificar las necesidades productivas y comercialización de manera priorizada. -Involucrar las autoridades locales (comunidades) en el proceso de mejora productiva y comercialización para que asuman una mayor cuota de responsabilidad en procura de la articulación de las mejores soluciones y el buen uso de los recursos que se dispongan. -Mejorar las infraestructuras para la gestión logística de los aspectos de almacenamiento para los alimentos perecederos. -Facilitar herramientas para garantizar mayor producción de rubros alimenticios en función de la reactivación económica (mayor facilidad de créditos, asistencia técnica y transporte). -Suministrar material de siembra con mayor calidad genética para lograr un mejor rendimiento en la producción. -Crear un programa de divulgación (campaña) para que la población consuma más alimentos bajo una dieta balanceada y nutritiva (más y mejor composición de micronutrientes conforme a las mejores prácticas de nutrición internacional). -Extender los programas de financiamiento a nivel comunitario. -Incorporar en centros regionales/provinciales de acopio, logística y empaque los servicios de transporte de bienes agropecuarios en las zonas de cosecha para reducir los costos de producción de los micro, pequeño y mediano productores. - Extender y promover los programas asociatividad y compras conjuntas a través de las figuras cooperativas y asociaciones productivas. -Mejorar la programación de la producción nacional orientada más al consumo nacional para aumentar la estabilidad entre la oferta y la demanda de la canasta básica. -Aumentar la inclusividad de las micro, pequeñas y medianas empresas productivas, y a la agricultura familiar a las compras gubernamentales. -Fomentar la descentralización de los procesos de planificación sectorial para que se realicen con enfoque territorial. - Fortalecer la inocuidad y calidad de la producción de alimentos a través de políticas públicas orientadas a la resiliencia y disrupción de los mercados locales e internacionales por la pandemia COVID-19. -Respetar y cuidar el medio ambiente en cada una de las etapas de proceso de producción, distribución y consumo de alimento. -Identificar los rubros de producción nacional que tengan menos de un 70% de participación referente al consumo total para incentivar el aumento productivo orientado a la producción, costos sostenibles. -Promover y apoyar al Estado Dominicano para que gestione los embates de la pandemia en el sector turístico para obtener aumentos sustanciales en el consumo turístico. -Gestionar una mejor relación productor-comprador para que el suministro de alimentos pueda fluir en tiempo, calidad y cantidad mediante convenios y contratos entre las Partes. -Aumentar la disponibilidad de los productos nacionales en los hoteles y restaurantes. -Promover la calidad e inocuidad de nuestros productos orientado al consumidor. -Promover campaña orientada al aumento del consumo de productos de origen local. Para hacer frente al alza de los costos de los insumos para la producción de alimentos se debe: -Desarrollar e implementar nuevas técnicas e insumos orgánicos para sustituir los insumos importados tradicionales. -Desarrollar, adoptar e importar nuevas variedades tolerantes a las plagas y enfermedades para reducir el uso de los insumos importados. -Dar facilidades de financiamiento a los productores para adquirir insumos, maquinarias y equipos, afines de ser más eficientes, resilientes y reducir los costos de producción agropecuario a nivel nacional. -Fomentar el colectivo en asociación y/o cooperativas de productores para reducir costos de producción. -Aumentar el acceso a las micro, pequeñas y medianas empresas de material de calidad certificada de reproducción agropecuaria.

2021-05-27 06:49:20205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/20932/95

77752

NoMAFF held the dialogue with land improvement related parties for developing the new strategy for realizing both the productivity improvement and sustainability through innovation, called “Measures for achievement of Decarbonization and Resilience with Innovation (MeaDRI)”. MAFF explained the outline of a draft of MeaDRI to the stakeholders, followed by the expression of views of the stakeholders on challenges and opportunities for sustainable food systems associated with the strategy.

234240244248249The expression of views of the stakeholders on challenges and opportunities for sustainable food systems associated with the new strategy, “MeaDRI.”235240244248249The main remarks of the participants are as follows: - It is desirable to increase the added value and brand of agricultural products from the environmental perspective as well as to protect farmland, water, and the rural environment. - A tour of small hydroelectric power plants is held every year for local parents and children. It has become a place for the environment education and, at the same time, has also led to the spread and enlightenment of renewable energy. - Aiming for a carbon-free society, it is essential to promote the introduction of renewable energy including small hydroelectric power generation. - With the clear purpose of “increasing the food for storks (an endangered species)”, we cultivate paddy field without relying on pesticides or chemical fertilizers. Also, we implement the water management such as maintaining water-laden paddy during winter. - Although the yield of pesticide-free cultivation is lower than that of conventional cultivation, it is estimated that the gross profit will be 1.5 times more than that of conventional cultivation because the material cost is low and the purchase price is high. - As it takes a lot of time and effort, however, we are proceeding with the pesticide-free farming with the cooperation of the Agricultural Development and Extension Center. - We have conducted a tour of rice planting experience and creature survey. This effort could attract, local people and has led to stable practices of environmentally friendly agriculture and revitalization in the region. - We are conducting research to develop an energy-independent system by adjusting the supply and demand balance of renewable energy in agricultural, mountain and fishing villages. We consider contributing to not only zero emissions but also disaster resilience and the realization of a decentralized society. - By appropriately controlling a series of water irrigation systems from water source to farmland and drainage destination based on weather information and water source information, we are proceeding with research to avoid crop damage due to floods and drought and contribute to mitigation of disasters in an entire region. - In order to implement new technologies in society, it is necessary to improve the ICT literacy of those who use the technology and to closely cooperate between the policy making side and the technology development side. In addition, it is necessary to participate in international rule making.

2021-05-27 07:12:02205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/20939/95

142125914

NoMAFF held the dialogue with members from consumer organizations for developing the new strategy for realizing both the productivity improvement and sustainability through innovation, called “Measures for achievement of Decarbonization and Resilience with Innovation (MeaDRI)”. MAFF explained the outline of a draft of MeaDRI to the stakeholders, followed by the expression of views of the stakeholders on challenges and opportunities for sustainable food systems associated with the strategy.

234239240244248249The expression of views of the stakeholders on challenges and opportunities for sustainable food systems associated with the new strategy, “MeaDRI”.235239240244248249The main remarks of the participants are as follows: - Potential environmental burdens caused by agriculture, forestry and fisheries should be fully informed. - Those who put a burden on the environment should bear the cost. - Policies related to food safety and health should be set out on the basis of science. Regarding genome editing and genetic modification, scientific reviews may be considered for securing food. - Consumers should be informed about policies related to the use of antibacterial agent. Regarding the protection of marine resources, ICC regulations need to be implemented immediately. - It is important to be able to distinguish between what is truly sustainable and what is not. The certification systems and labeling are very important. - (Asked about buying organic farm products that look bad in appearance) As a consumer, we frequently and actively use organic farm products that have a bad shape because we understand the background information. I wonder if those products are handled properly at the distribution and wholesale stages. - As seen in charging for plastic shopping bags, economic methods are effective for consumers to change their behavior. In doing so, the environmental load or what is getting from the ecosystem should be reflected on their prices. - An accurate institutional design is needed in order not to produce a free rider. - Organic vegetables can be eaten without peeling, which may lead to reduction of food loss and waste. - We would like producers to expand organic farming. However, the matching between producers and supermarkets may not go well because there are few products in bad appearance on the shelves in supermarkets. - For providing consumers with organic farm products after ensuring quality and safety (fungal toxin, etc.), it is necessary to change the food chain.

2021-05-27 10:18:27204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/16044/203

3751381477416226147297434614341535125462737250103129263877223162137438

This dialogue event covered two AUC regions; Eastern and Southern Africa. It was convened in this manner to enable synergies that facilitate working with others and building on the collaborative work with various organisations that participated in the dialogue. Secondly, it was opportunity for diversity within the regions to be up held and various voices to be heard.Diversity and multi-stakeholder participation including universities, SROs, RECs, NGOs, youth organisations and private sector participation -Complementary actors within the universities and various entities that often work together reinforcing each other. Breakout sessions focused aon a specific issue for discussion which was further deliberated to gain consensusThey need to have a carefully considered selection of speakers with expertise to ensure that the dialogue objectives are fulfilled while upholding the principles of the of engagement.

Yes

234238239241242243244248249251The Eastern and Southern Africa Food Systems Dialogue brought together universities and other food system actors in the two sub-regions including the SROs such as Centre for Coordination of Agricultural Research and Development for Southern Africa (CCARDESA), Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa (ASARECA), Agricultural Research Corporation (ARC), South Africa, Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources Policy Analysis Network (FANRPAN), South Africa and universities from across the region with participation of university management as well as academia. This dialogue focused on the following: 1. Analysis of current Food Systems in Eastern and Southern Africa 2. Analysis of in-country food systems, drivers and required actions for building resilient food systems 3. Strengthening Food Systems transformation for increased productivity, inclusivity and resilience with a focus on four priority areas: a. Strengthening Food Systems Research and Innovation b. Human capital development for enhanced Sustainable Food Systems Productivity and Resilience c. Fostering inclusivity d. Policies for strengthening Food Systems in Africa Through the above four focus areas, the dialogue was able to address the action tracks as prioritized by the food systems Summit among these; building resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress; ensuring safe access to safe and nutritious food, advancing equitable livelihoods and value addition and ensuring access to safe and nutritious food for all.2352382392402412422432442462482492511. With regards to the state of food and nutrition, it was observed that amidst apparent plenty, global hunger is increasing, there is wide spread stunting, food production systems are putting biodiversity at greatest threat and by 2050 there will be more 2 billion people that need to be fed amidst increasing constraints in the food systems. Addressing these challenges requires strong political commitment from across the countries and political divide. 2. Transforming Africa’s food systems to promote well-being across all sectors from production to consumption is an important imperative that needs to be undertaken. In order to realise this, there is need to: (i) harness Africa’s strengths including vibrant cultures, agro and natural biodiversity, youth, growing markets, cooperative, society-driven norms; (ii) harness technological advances to overcome lack of relevant technologies and the lack of economies of size, (iii) build capacity and work together with human capital development for research and innovation being central focus for sustained growth; (iv) exploit the technological advances to aggregate outputs, improve market linkages and make the information rapidly available at scale. 3. Food systems within Eastern and Southern Africa have multiple drivers across the value chain. It is generally sub-divided into two realms; (i) Commercial food system…with formal supply chains e.g. maize has production, distribution with even existing food reserves in some countries. This serves the urban markets, meets the requisite standards and defines the way food is to be delivered; and (ii) the Subsistence food system that is a critical and important for the rural populations upon which they highly depend on. However, the region is under immense strain from climate variabilities and change including droughts and floods, invasive species, limited technology use leading to a huge yield gap, policy constraints among others. 4. Market access for new entrants into farming remains a vital ingredient that will unlock the sustainability of agricultural enterprises in Africa. Within the context of Southern Africa, the agricultural land reform programme focuses partly on this but it requires to be expanded and strengthened. Further, access to financing; for infrastructure, inputs are critical to enable enterprises to become sustainable. Beyond government, private sector needs to take action to bring financial and allied services closer in an affordable manner. 5. Universities and higher education institutions have a critical role to play in food systems transformation. They are the engines for technologies and innovations generations including; crop varieties, vaccines, diagnostic tools for managing risks from biosecurity and climate change. Universities need to be brought to the center of the food systems this enable them play this critical role and help in the delivery of nutritious and safe food, improved financial sustainability of farm enterprises, greater engagement with communities, engagement with policy makers and change their culture of doing business by for example making universities easily accessible and open to the smallholder farmers and communities. 6. African youth are currently one of the missing link in the agricultural sector and their active role in the food systems is limited. In order to attract, retain and meaningfully engage the youth, there is need to appreciate a large number of opportunities for youth exist beyond primary production and these could be more exciting avenues for their full participation. Further youth as new entrants in agriculture are innovative and could provide new models and tools for transforming the science and technology of agriculture through the research and this could offer immense opportunities with clear returns on investment. As youth are more committed to enterprises that provide clear and often immediate returns, it would be good to get youth interested in high value commodity production that often does not require so much labour and less land enterprises. 7. Fostering inclusivity within the food systems is paramount for sustainable livelihoods. This is particularly more important considering that there has been a move towards oligopoly mainly in well performing enterprises this has tended to create exclusion of the less fortunate stakeholders especially the smallholder farmers. Generating inclusive outcomes through integrated value chains requires; (i) strengthening value chain links; (ii) building partnerships that are equitable and fair and transparent; (iii) enable institutional arrangements to work including those that lower the risks for smallholder farmers such as contracting farming; (iv) shift from production oriented agricultural advisory services to market oriented services; and (v) utilise ecosystem approach that enables greater interaction of actors within and among themselves.2362382392402412422432442452462482492511. Food system in the region is under siege from different conditions; drought/climate change, technology usage, limited deployment of technologies leading to a high yield gap between field trials and farmer gardens, and policy constraints among others 2. Strengthening Food Systems Research and Innovation; innovating through digital technology, utilizing diverse data strata to relay information in the value chain with potential for smooth feedback, market orientation, and coupled with a paradigm shift, will unlock the food systems transformation 3. Human capital development: training for new skills and competencies for delivering agricultural modernization and sustainability is required in the continent. Further, there is need to embrace innovations in technology including in TVET institutions, reconfigure the mentality in terms of human capital development by ensuring customization of skills, quality assurance, continuous retooling and fiscal support from government to enable for value addition. Education should also stem from multi-disciplinary teams and processes. 4. Strengthening Policies for improved food and nutrition security: agriculture is just one component of the food systems but plays a role in food security there is need to strengthen the entire system and make it work together rather than in isolation of each other with feasible tracking of performance.

2021-05-27 16:19:32207https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/13264/203

14361053256876473318738696272013554214385102511

While the participant list was intentionally skewed toward a younger demographic, the dialogue organizers sought out multi-stakeholder inclusivity through diversity in geography, culture, and interest areas. To assist with a diverse range of participants, interpretation was provided during the opening session, and participants had the option to express a language preference for the breakout sessions. The breakout sessions were designed to allow for the complexity and inclusion of several perspectives to come through by using a question that probed personal experiences and context-specific knowledge: “what does good food mean to you?” The dialogue also tasked participants with a challenge to go out and convene their own Independent Dialogue, highlighting the need to act with urgency.Act with urgency: There was a specific call to action to take on Independent Dialogues and work towards real change. Commit to the Summit: The Dialogue served as a launch pad for the Food Systems Summit engagement campaign, “Good Food For All” which will encourage not only youth, but everyone to take action towards transforming food systems. Be respectful: Participants were encouraged to share freely; only the opening session was livestreamed to allow for a safe and private space to talk during the breakout session. Recognize complexity: Facilitators of breakout rooms were encouraged to lead the discussion around the following topics: access to healthy diets, social inclusion, resilience (pests, conflicts, COVID-19, etc.), healthy people in a healthy planet Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity: The dialogue welcomed a diverse array of perspectives and provided interpretation to allow for greater inclusivity. Participants came from around the world, representing 45 countries.Having a very talented and engaging curator and group of facilitators makes all the difference! The Youth Dialogue was fortunate to have Dustin Liu and Mofiyin Onanuga serve as curator and host for the event--having two curators can sometimes be very helpful to literally and figuratively add another voice to the discussion.

Yes

234251Overview: Gathering youth voices from around the world, the Food Systems Summit Global Youth Dialogue invited a curated group of 100 youth for a discussion on the future of our food systems. The Global Dialogue brought together youth advocates from across the globe who champion a range of issues in their local contexts – from agriculture to climate to education. The Dialogue opened with high-level welcome remarks, followed by guest speakers answering the question, “What does ‘good food’ mean to you? Youth participants were then divided into groups for a dynamic discussion on the varied meanings of ‘good food’ sharing their ideas to help shape the future of our food systems in diverse contexts. To close the Dialogue, youth facilitators shared key insights from their groups and participants were issued a challenge to run 100 Independent Dialogues in their own contexts and communities. The Dialogue closed with the launch of the #Act4food #Act4change campaign. Opening Session: The opening session kicked off a conversation around youth engagement in food systems and how to inspire others to drive forward inclusive and sustainable actions to change the food system. The opening session featured: 1. Launch of series on Netflix with Waffles and Mochi exploring the wonder of food across the world 2. Ms Amina J Mohammed, UN Deputy Secretary-General - spoke about those who are suffering from climate change are the most vulnerable, but highlighted that youth are most resilient. What is important is mobilising peer-to-peer support and having intergenerational partnerships. 3. Jessica Vega Ortega, Coordinator of the Global Indigenous Youth Caucus - spoke about experiences of indigenous groups and her community’s different relationship with food, production, and on being linked to the land. She highlighted how we need to reinvent our practices and decolonise the existing food system to make it inclusive and equitable 4. Ms. Henrietta H. Fore, Executive Director of UNICEF - raised 4 key issues that need to be reformed: the quality of what children eat; the quality of food environments; improving feeding practices in early childhood; reducing carbon footprints of production and minimising environmental damage. 5. Ms. Janya Green, youth co-chair for Action Track 1 - spoke on her own experience of setting up a community garden at age 12 and the importance of having initiatives be locally-owned and sustainable. Ms. Green also expressed support for new initiatives such as #actforfood #actforchange. 6. Ms. Jayathma Wickramanayake UN Secretary-General's Envoy on Youth - shared her thoughts on the intersection of food systems with climate action, such as how leaders are paying more attention to these issues but need to make sure they are translated into action. The Envoy on Youth also noted there is a huge potential for a new food system to create decent work, but this needs to be supported by policies, decision-makers, and finance. 7. Ms. Agnes Kalibata, UN Secretary General’s Special Envoy for the 2021 Food Systems Summit - encouraged youth to be bold and highlighted the importance of these dialogues. The Special Envoy also highlighted that we need to be clear about what youth are bringing to the table, discuss what we expect from the Summit, and what actions youth would like to see in the future. 8. Ms. Emi Mahmoud, UNHCR Goodwill Ambassador – shared an emotive spoken word poem touching on family, sharing food, and Ramadan. The initial session was broadcast on UN web TV, but for the breakout sessions the participants were split into 10 breakout rooms that employed Chatham House rules.235249251Key themes from the dialogue Identified Problems 1. Low interest among youth in farming 2. Nutrition and unhealthy diets 3. Perspective that junk food is cheap and healthy, nutritious food is expensive 4. There is a disconnect between what is consumed and produced - long value chains 5. Exploitation of smaller producers by middlemen 6. Food waste -- both on a large scale (e.g. transportation and post-harvest losses) as well as smaller scales (individuals, households, and businesses) 7. Lack of support to smallholder farmers and the dominance of monopolies and corporations 8. Human rights – indigenous, smallholder farmers, women, and children’s rights are not recognized enough 9. Food is not valued as filling spiritual and emotional needs; decreased communal sharing of food 10. Deforestation and land degradation caused by food production 11. Climate change – concerns of industrial pollution, unsustainable consumption of meat and dairy, transportation, and the impacts of climate change on the most vulnerable, small scale producers, and subsistence farmers 12. Lack of diversification in the food system; domination of a handful of staple goods, negative ramifications for the environment and human nutrition. 13. Limited education – both information for farmers and awareness of the food system and nutrition 14. Digital divide – unequal access to the internet and other technologies 15. Limitation of youth's voice in politics and industry What needs to be done: 1. Make farming attractive to youth – this includes changing the narrative and image of farming as well as providing access to sustainable finance, information, and proper training to make working in agriculture as attractive as traditionally white-collar jobs. More support needs to be given to empower and encourage agri-preneurs by both businesses and government policies. Incubators could also be created as hubs for young farmers to share ideas and interests. 2. Cut out the middleman – long food chains prevent farmers from connecting to consumers properly and result in lost income. Farming cooperatives and collectives should be supported to help with this. Waste management could also be improved this way. 3. Digitalisation – support to farmers in accessing technologies and enabling a sense of ownership so they are not controlled or priced out by large monopolies. Technologies are important in improving climate resilience, productivity, reducing waste, and marketing. 4. The right government subsidies a. Subsidies should facilitate and encourage more sustainable land management (e.g. forest regrowth, crop diversification, and carbon sequestration). b. Encourage growth of more sustainable food sources e.g. away from large scale meat and dairy production – food that is locally available and culturally relevant c. Stop subsidizing biofuels, as this takes land away from food d. Incentivise a more circular economy approach e. Support the growing and eating of more nutritious food rather than consuming 'junk food' – additional policies could also support this by requiring certain standards to be met and limiting the sale of empty-calorie foods. 5. Governments to deliver land reforms where necessary in line with indigenous rights, as well as stopping land grabs and giving priority to large scale corporations over smallholder farmers 6. Education a. Governments i. National or regional health campaigns to promote nutrition and healthy eating – as well as where food comes from ii. School syllabuses should include more information on the food system and encourage students to think critically about where food comes from and how it is produced b. Private sector i. Be transparent about value chains, how food is produced, and its nutritional content - better transparency should also be required by governments ii. Could run CSR activities to help broaden awareness on multiple topics c. Individuals – share and explain stories – this could tie in with any of the larger-scale initiatives as it was acknowledged that collectively lots of different individuals and actions have a substantial impact. Farmers also need better and more equitable access to information to improve sustainability and production. 7. We need to encourage youths to learn how to plant their own foods and to make them understand the importance of what they grow and what they eat – this would be a key part of reconnecting consumers and producers and building communities. 8. Home gardening and school feeding programs are effective in communities. Encourage people to grow their own vegetables, and help with the restoration of land through such means as planting fruit trees; by planting fruit trees, people are less likely to cut them down for fuel. 9. Youth inclusion – need to be more widely engaged in decision making either via youth parliaments, youth boards, or wider campaigning and advocacy. Existing youth groups could also do more to connect to those who may not have the same digital access. 10. Policies on GMOs could be developed to restrict intellectual property rights and to develop checks to stop monopolies. 11. Fortify food to improve nutrition. 12. Advertise nutritious food – there should be limits on advertisements for 'junk food' (led by governments) – but businesses should also be encouraged to do this through consumer advocacy and movements 13. We need to acknowledge the spiritual and emotional value of food more widely236251All groups discussed the same topic: “What does good food mean to you?” Summaries were prepared by the group's notetaker. Group 1 There needs to be more recognition of our producers’ efforts because they are the one who feeds us, yet they are going hungry. This could include building the network of goodness to protect the sectors we are serving and advance our advocacies. Agriculture needs to be rebranded to make it more appealing to young people and land rights is also key to this engagement. Food industries and producers should use their power to shine the light to healthy diet/food. We want adverts of junk foods stopped in the UK and around the world, so obesity can be tackled. We need to encourage youths to learn how to plant their own foods and to make them understand the importance of what they grow and what they eat – this would be a key part of reconnecting consumers and producers and building communities. Young people are experts at their own experience and should be considered as equal partners. Group 2 Food loss and waste is a major issue; need ideas for how to upcycle and prevent food loss and waste, including better storage, reduction of time travelled/better transportation options, improved seed varieties. Smallholder farmers are often not paid fairly due to a reliance on middlemen, so more investment is needed for smallholder farmers in terms of both knowledge and finance Home gardening and school feeding programs are effective in communities. Encourage people that they can grow their own vegetables and help with the restoration of land by planting fruit trees; by planting fruit trees, people are less likely to cut them down for fuel. Not all the community members are knowledgeable about home gardening and how to take the plants. So, we have to create sessions to brief people on what to plant how and how to take care of the plants especially as most of the manure used is organic People only eat certain food because of branding and marketing and social media influence. We need to hold the industry accountable and need to restructure our consumption patterns – there is equality which has been exacerbated by COVID-19. Group 3 All participants conveyed that youth are not attracted to farming, and this is a big issue nowadays. Youth have limited access to finance and the opportunity to invest in food value chains due to lack of collateral securities, limited access to technologies to ease post-harvest handling and value addition. There has also been a failure to digitize the food system. In many places, food is basically produced in rural areas where ICT service access is still a dream, and limited access to business clinics and business incubation centres to support start-ups engaged in the food value chains. Some of the solutions proposed were; having sufficient finance for people to be more enthusiastic and attracted to agriculture or farming; there also needs to be better resources including access to land; respect indigenous rights; rethink the distribution of power so that governments reflect what young people need. Through policy change, we can ensure that people representing us can translate into policy young people’s inputs. From the consumption’s point of view, we have health issues related to unhealthy food and unhealthy habits. Undernourishment is a key issue. *continued in number 2.236251Group 4 Farmers and rural youth, especially those typically marginalized, need to be included in global dialogues to influence more directly policy makers. Also, addressing the digital divide is key as many rural communities remain isolated and also many slums in big urban areas, for instance there are programs that also focus on reform youth in criminal activities and give back to their communities by being involved in transforming food consumption. The role of artists and youth as trend-setters and culture shifters is key. Other than promoting spaces for youth to interact, youth’s ideas and proposals need to be considered and more opportunities for youth need to be opened. Businesses need to support agri-preneurs. Policy makers need to address healthy and unhealthy foods as well as policy to promote nutritious food. The food industry needs to take into consideration the health and nutrition of consumers. This could also include raising awareness of where food comes from. Fair wages for farmers and a reduction of “the middleman” is important to rethink agricultural value chains. Labour rights in agriculture need to be respected and decent employment needs to be promoted. Child labour must be addressed as well as a gender focus on rural interventions, recognition of indigenous rights and land tenure. Group 6 Discussed the triple burden of nutrition and that there is not enough focus on prevention of malnutrition and unhealthy consumption. There is a lack of awareness of healthy food communication is not happening and instead there is focus on packaged and marketed food. There needs to be a stronger educational element in primary and secondary school on where food comes from, how it is produced and how it can be improved for people and the planet. There is opportunity for advocacy and changing mindsets e.g. invest in responsible consumption, but this also needs be met by government action. The UK was provided as an example, referring to the sugar tax. There was support for continued fortification of food to tackle malnutrition. How we produce and transport food was also discussed as last mile delivery is large problem in the developing world – need better access to innovative technologies, digitalisation and also better information for farmers. GMO technology was also discussed as a positive option, providing there are checks to stop a monopoly and unfair access and distribution of these technologies. Governments could subsidise carbon incentives for producers to tackle climate change aspect of the food system as well as acting to shorten production value chains. Group 7 Small holder farmers usually lack access to financial credit or land rights which both significantly impede their ability to obtain food sovereignty. It’s hard to begin to build a productive farm when the land can be snatched, and it’s impossible to bring your production to market if you don’t have the right up-front credit sources. The conversation about advocacy really was rooted in awareness. It all has to start with people knowing what’s right and what’s not right for our planet and our bodies. Food should be regional, seasonal, reasonable, and spiritual and people who connect to food should think about these four qualities to analyse the damage potentially being done by their diets. Awareness then allows us to start small, and bring small incremental change that can get to systemic levels of change when enough people join in. We don’t all have to immediately be a Greta, because we know she just started with a small incremental change at her own level too. However, this individual awareness raising needs to also lead to demanding policy action for change. We need to push our governments to re-write the economic incentives to shift the entire system, so that healthy and sustainable diets are the easiest to access, the most affordable, and the most desirable. *continued in section 3236251Group 8 The group’s discussion cantered primarily on accessibility issues. There was significant discussion around the importance of access to high quality, nutritious foods to improve outcomes for education. There was also significant discussion about the importance of adequately compensating farmers for the work, improving the transportation system and eliminating middlemen where possible to ensure fair payment to farmers. There was high consensus from the group that investment must be made in nutritious foods for children in order to pursue country-wide advancement. Providing young people with a healthy diet is a surer investment than pumping money into youth clubs, etc. Short term changes lead to long term consequences. Meal plans in schools must be well implemented to be effective. Work closely with food foundations or corporate social responsibility branches of corporations to implement better policies. Group 9 Youth are more attracted to white collar jobs, and there is no youth involved in food production. People with influence have gotten money through businesses that do not produce food. And youth is looking up to these influential people as models, and abandoning food production, agriculture. We need to revise and see how we can have the youth get more into food production, agriculture, food processing factories. We can benefit from empower young, smallholder farmers, especially those using sustainable practices. Grant them more spaces in the market. Need to tackle the problem of affordability – we need to urge the lowering of prices of food, healthy foods are not very affordable. The food that is affordable is not healthy, and people will only consume that because this is all they can pay for. Affordability is key for heathier lifestyles and diets. It was raised that there could be more conversations and dialogues. Discuss what it means to actually transform the food systems. The group also discussed youth leaders and people in power and developing this capacity – tackling corruption was also raised as an important step.237251There was very little divergence expressed in the breakout rooms, or at least very little was recorded by the notetakers and facilitators. However, many different views of what "good food" actually entailed were expressed; good food was defined as healthy, nutritious, culturally relevant, sustainable, spiritual, emotional, diverse, local, home-grown, fresh, communally shared, produced with dignity, affordable, tasty, and more.

2021-05-27 18:25:28204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/13952/79

150268233959911512112085652254494128821206332321191121015312311

El Comité Consultivo de la Integración Económica -CCIE-, es la entidad empresarial más grande de la región, conformada por 17 Federaciones, alrededor de 95 Cámaras y Asociaciones empresariales y más de 50 mil empresarios. Dada la importancia de los temas que se abordarán en la Cumbre de los Sistemas Alimentarios organizado por la Organización de Naciones Unidas y programada para el mes de septiembre de este año, por primera vez como sector privado organizado, nos hemos involucrado en la realización de diálogos regionales con la participación de representantes de los principales organismos centroamericanos, los gobiernos de los países Centroamericanos, la sociedad civil, y los distintos grupos de interés.Promover la confianza Reconocer la complejidad Ser respetuosos Adoptar un enfoque inclusivo de múltiples grupos de interésEs muy importante convocar a tiempo, esto nos permite darle la divulgación adecuada y contar con una buena participación que sea inclusiva. Asimismo, la preparación de los facilitadores es esencial ya que por medio de ellos recabaremos los insumos adecuados. Si la actividad es virtual es necesario contar con una buena logística, una plataforma segura, un buen equipo para que el evento se desarrolle con normalidad.

Yes

234238243245248249251A) TEMA PRINCIPAL Los países centroamericanos forman parte de un proceso de integración. Este proceso sirve como una plataforma para potenciar las acciones en favor del desarrollo de cada uno de los países de la región. Se buscó abordar la Cumbre sobre Sistemas Alimentarios desde la dimensión centroamericana para que las ideas nacionales sean replicadas a nivel regional. De esta manera, las soluciones propuestas pueden llegar a ser implementadas a una mayor escala. El Comité Consultivo de la Integración Económica -CCIE- con el apoyo del Instituto Interamericano de Cooperación para la Agricultura – IICA, la Asociación Salvadoreña de Industriales ¬– ASI y la Federación Panamericana de la Lechería en Uruguay – FEPALE, organizó el Diálogo Regional de Alimentos Seguros y Nutritivos para Todos, bajo la Cumbre de los Sistemas Alimentarios 2021: una mirada desde la visión de integración regional. Con el objeto de impulsar una participación efectiva y oportuna de la región centroamericana en el proceso de preparación de la Cumbre sobre Sistemas Alimentarios, prevista a realizarse en septiembre de 2021. El tema principal del diálogo fue la soluciones innovadores que el sector privado centroamericano está realizando en favor de la sostenibilidad de los sistemas alimentarios. El diálogo fue dividido en tres temas principales: 1. Fortificación de alimentos. Se abordó cómo la fortificación de alimentos es una solución innovadora que podría transformar los sistemas alimentarios colaborando para los problemas de malnutrición en la región centroamericana. Se comentó sobre la oportunidad que existe de una colaboración entre la industria alimentaria y la ciencia, además de la importancia de los alimentos vehículos para llevar los nutrientes a la población. 2. Avances y desafíos en la seguridad e inocuidad de los alimentos. Se discutió sobre las áreas de oportunidad para mejorar la seguridad y la inocuidad de los alimentos. El objetivo fue encontrar posibles soluciones innovadoras para avanzar en esta materia en la región. 3. Importancia de la proteína en la producción/consumo de alimentos. la cual nos da un parámetro en la que nos indica que el ser humano necesita de proteína para combatir la desnutrición.235238239241243245246247248249251El Diálogo Regional sobre Alimentos Seguros y Nutritivos para todos surge con el deseo de alcanzar las metas de los ODS2030 y generar desarrollo inclusivo sin que nadie quede atrás. Tal y como señala la Organización de Naciones Unidas, es necesario avanzar en una visión compartida en donde la articulación de propuestas entre el sector público y privado es clave. El CCIE integra a las federaciones de los distintos actores de las cadenas de valor que juegan algún rol dentro del concepto de los sistemas alimentarios. Con esa visión, es que vemos sumamente importante que abordemos el proceso preparatorio con dos perspectivas muy claras y coherentes entre sí: • La dimensión regional, “la centroamericana”, bajo el proceso de integración, que se complementa a su vez con las acciones que se desarrollan a nivel de cada país. Ya que unidos como región somos más fuertes; y, • La “alianza público – privada”, en la que se articulan las competencias y capacidades de los Estados y sus Sectores Productivos. El éxito de la Cumbre dependerá de una preparación sólida, inclusiva y, sobre todo, compartida, basada en las mejores evidencias, ideas y compromisos de todo el mundo. Qué se espera como Región Centroamericana en la Cumbre de los Sistemas Alimentarios 2021: 1. Elevar dramáticamente el discurso público sobre la importancia de los sistemas alimentarios y qué hacer para que el público trabaje por la gente y el planeta. 2. Acción relevante con resultados medibles que faciliten alcanzar los ODS2030. Esto incluye resaltar soluciones existentes, celebrar y reconocer líderes en los sistemas de transformación alimentaria, así como un llamado a nuevas acciones de todos los sectores. 3. Declaración de alto nivel y llamado a la acción desarrollado a través de un proceso con el apoyo de los Estados miembro y otros actores para mejorar la capacidad de sus sistemas alimentarios para alcanzar los ODS. Es por ello, que estamos sumamente entusiasmados con este evento que se llevó a cabo, el cual está perfectamente alineado con la naturaleza del CCIE:  Nos presenta como una entidad regional del Sector Productivo, creada por los instrumentos de la integración, y,  Nos permite buscar la articulación de ideas y acciones con la visión y esfuerzos institucionales de otros organismos regionales y autoridades de Gobierno, bajo el amparo de la integración centroamericana. CCIE con el apoyo del Instituto Interamericano de Cooperación para la Agricultura, -IICA- y la Federación Panamericana de Lechería, -FEPALE-, con el objeto de visibilizar el proceso de la Cumbre, así como intercambiar información sobre las acciones que las diferentes instituciones, llevaremos a cabo el diálogo sobre "Alimentos Seguros y Nutritivos para Todos bajo la Cumbre de los Sistemas Alimentarios 2021. Con el objeto de impulsar una participación efectiva y oportuna de la región centroamericana en el proceso de preparación de la Cumbre sobre Sistemas Alimentarios , prevista a realizarse en septiembre de 2021, elabora un diálogo con el fin de tomar en cuenta la vía de acción No. 1 sobre Alimentos Seguros y Nutritivos para Todos donde desarrollaremos insumos para la búsqueda de soluciones innovadoras para acelerar la reducción del hambre, hacer que los alimentos nutritivos estén más disponibles y asequibles y hacer que los sistemas alimentarios sean más seguros.236238241243245247248249251Tema #1: FORTIFICACIÓN DE ALIMENTOS: Durante la mesa de diálogo sobre “fortificación de alimentos”, se abordó el tema de la unión entre la ciencia y la industria alimenticia. Se comentó la importancia de esta alianza en términos de poder erradicar la malnutrición y deficiencia vitamínica tanto en niños como adultos. El tema central también radicó en la discusión del “alimento vehículo” (aquel alimento fortificado que es de fácil acceso a la población sin importar su estatus económico). Se comentó que la decisión de este tipo de alimentos radica en la accesibilidad del mismo, pero son estos alimentos los que han sido satanizados como nocivos para la dieta de los niños y adultos. De la misma manera, se mencionaron algunos de los alimentos en los cuales ya se dan fortificaciones. Algunos ejemplos dados fueron: el azúcar con vitamina A, el arroz, la harina fortificada, la sal con yodo y flúor, entre otros. Esto sirvió para evidenciar que ya se están dando esfuerzos para avanzar con la fortificación. Sin embargo, se comentó que sirvió como prueba de que es necesario que esta no solo se de dentro de los ingredientes, sino que también sea implementada en los alimentos procesados, buscando seleccionar alimentos que lleguen a la mayor cantidad de la población posible. A su vez, se resaltó en la conversación la importancia de la educación nutricional y las dietas balanceadas en todos los niveles socioeconómicos. Se consideró oportuno mencionar este tema, ya que, se ha dado una “satanización” sobre algunos alimentos dentro de la dieta de la población. Se critica que esto afecta el alcance de estos micronutrientes en la población. Se propone un trabajo en conjunto entre los trabajadores de la salud y de la nutrición para desmitificar el consumo de productos como el azúcar o las harinas. Esto con el fin de poder elegir alimentos vehículos que puedan ayudar a erradicar la malnutrición de la región. Por último, se identificó y se hizo énfasis en la necesidad de revisar y actualizar los reglamentos técnicos. Se llegó a la conclusión de que esto perjudica la producción y comercialización de los productos fortificados, haciendo más difícil su acceso a la población. Se propuso un esfuerzo por que las actualizaciones se realizaran en periodos de tiempo razonables y así poder agilizar las gestiones.236238243248Tema #2: AVANCES Y DESAFÍOS EN LA SEGURIDAD E INOCUIDAD DE LOS ALIMENTOS: Dentro de los temas abordados en la discusión, se mencionó que de acuerdo a estudios recientes se determina que la región es sumamente vulnerable a efectos climáticos. Se menciona que esto tiene una influencia directa en la producción de alimentos, sobre todo aquellos producidos por el sector agrícola. Así mismo, se hizo mención de las medidas tomadas a partir de la pandemia por COVID-19. Se reconocieron los esfuerzos por parte de la industria de mantener a su personal seguro. A su vez, se manifestó que gran parte del sector ya contaba con procesos de bioseguridad para procurar un buen proceso de inocuidad de los alimentos. También se mencionaron los problemas de valorización y estigma que sufren varios productos alimenticios. Entre estos se mencionó el azúcar y el huevo, que si bien son ricos en nutrientes, son catalogados como nocivos para la salud. Esto se unió al tema de seguridad alimentaria y cómo esto es un área de oportunidad para mejorar la imagen de dichos alimentos. Se discutieron las nuevas tecnologías e innovaciones dentro de las seguridad e inocuidad de alimentos. Se resaltó su importancia dentro de los procesos, pero se discutió que había necesidad de hacer más estudios acerca de su viabilidad y de sus verdaderos efectos. A su vez, se resaltó la necesidad de analizar la forma en la que estas innovaciones han sido adaptadas dentro de algunos sectores y cuál ha sido su impacto. En cuanto a la sostenibilidad, se discutió sobre la necesidad de realizar un mejor manejo de los recursos naturales y de los subproducto, mencionándose ejemplos en el sector de la caña de azúcar y el sector avícola. Se evidenciaron oportunidades para garantizar la sostenibilidad de la producción. Por último, se mencionó la importancia de la educación y capacitación constante, con el fin de seguir descubriendo posibles mejoras al sistema de seguridad e inocuidad alimentaria. De igual manera, se hizo énfasis en la necesidad de una interacción conjunta entre los diferentes sectores de la industria alimenticia para el intercambio de buenas prácticas.236238243245248249Tema #3: IMPORTANCIA DE LA PROTEÍNA EN LA PRODUCCIÓN/CONSUMO DE ALIMENTOS Se comenzó enfatizando la existencia de la malnutrición en los países de la región, sobre todo se evidenció la vulnerabilidad de la misma durante la pandemia por COVID-19. Se hizo mención de la importancia de la proteína de origen animal en la dieta de las personas. A la vez, se planteó la preocupación por las diferentes campañas que buscan la disminución del consumo de proteína animal. Se comentó que la proteína debería de ser un punto central de todos los programas nacionales de nutrición, sobre todo en la región centroamericana. Se habló de la carestía de micronutrientes en dichos programas. Se propuso la implementación y refuerzo de los programas de alimentación escolar, con el fin de llevar la proteína a los niños, apoyando de esta manera a su desarrollo. Se planteó el costo de la carne como un problema generalizado. Se mencionó que debido a su alto costo, la proteína de origen animal difícilmente puede llegar a toda la población. Se propuso el análisis de una acción conjunta con los gobiernos para implementar acciones que disminuyan los precios de la carne, buscando alcanzar una mayor producción a un menor costo. Este último tema sirvió para hablar de regulaciones dentro del sector de las proteínas. Se llegó a la conclusión de la necesidad de que existan regulaciones más claras para evitar confusiones en los consumidores, sobre todo con los productos análogos que dicen ser derivados de la carne cuando no lo son. Esto podría apoyar a un consumo responsable, así como un apoyo en la desmitificación de la proteína de origen animal. Pro último, se resaltó la importancia de que existan políticas públicas que fomenten la educación nutricional. Sobre todo para resaltar la importancia de saber reconocer las proteínas y su consumo. Permitiendo así un mejor entendimiento de la importancia de la proteína para el desarrollo nutricional de la población regional.237no hubo ninguna divergencia significativa en las discusiones de las mesas de diálogo.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/FORMULARIO-DE-COMENTARIOS-FINALES-Dialogo-2.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/es/dialogue/13952/

2021-05-28 07:58:44204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/13150/18

3040503684

The Dialogue was organised to complement existing discussions the industry holds with its stakeholders to provide input to the ongoing development of the Australian Dairy Industry Sustainability Framework (ADISF). The event served as both a UN Dialogue, as well as the ADISF’s regular Consultative Forum. The organisers developed an invitation list that was inclusive of a wide range of stakeholders from across the value chain, including dairy producers, processors, and retailers to government, NGOs, media, regulators, academics, nutritionists, scientists, extension officers, service providers, sustainability experts and financial institutions. The organisers also wanted to demonstrate the complexity of food systems and arranged a diverse range of experts to speak, including climate scientists, dietitians, environmentalists, social scientists and food producers. Provocateurs were appointed and briefed to guide the Dialogue according to the principlesThe ADISF is based on the principles of ethical behaviour; transparency and accountability; appreciation of stakeholder interest; competitive neutrality; collective action that delivers mutual benefit; and inclusivity. The dialogue principles are reflected in these and are an integral part of how the dairy industry engages on discussions relating to the Sustainability Framework. The first half of the dialogue considered ideas for a sustainable future of food in line with the UN Food Systems Summit. This complemented the dairy industry’s existing ongoing consultation on the Australian Dairy Industry Sustainability Framework (ADISF), which was discussed in the second half. The Dairy Sustainability Consultative Forum is one of the ADISF’s regular engagement activities. The Dialogue was organised under the ADISF’s governance and reporting structure - designed to build trust across the dairy value chain. This structure is underpinned by the ADISF’s principles of transparency and accountability. The dairy industry’s annual Sustainability Reports are made publicly available, including the governance structure, with the latest one (2020) released at the Forum and also available at https://www.sustainabledairyoz.com.au/about-our-framework. The highest decision-making body, the Australian Dairy Industry Council, is the peak national representative body for the Australian dairy industry and has overall accountability for the Sustainability Framework. The Dialogue also reflected the complexity of food systems and organisers hosted a robust discussion of different aspects including climate, biodiversity, nutrition, culture, social resilience and economic livelihood. This complexity was expressed through the variety of experts that spoke on these different topics. Lastly, the diverse attendance of the Dialogue reflected multi-stakeholder inclusivity. Attendees included dairy producers, processors and retailers as well as NGOs, government, regulators, financial institutions, academics, nutritionists, scientists, extension officers, sustainability experts, and media.It is critical that Dialogue organisers invite a wide range of stakeholders to attend and to speak. The diversity of attendees and speakers supports the sharing of different perspectives on the sustainable food problem. It encourages looking at food production through a systems lens rather than through a narrow issue specific lens. Additionally, open sharing and transparency between a diverse set of stakeholders helps build trust across the sector which is important for the implementation of any post-Dialogue solutions.

Yes

234238239244246248249The focus of the Dialogue was to explore the role of dairy in a sustainable food system. This Dialogue started with an exploration of the elements of a sustainable food system and the levers of change for accelerating transformation of such a system, in particular technological innovation. The first session, Reimagining food for a healthier world, was led by the head of the scientific group for Action Track 2 - Shift to sustainable consumption pattern - Professor Mario Herrero, Chief Research Scientist of Agriculture and Food at the CSIRO in Australia. Session 2, Ideas for changing the future of food, generated game-changing ideas for enabling systems change. This conversation was led by cross-sectoral representatives from public health, social science, environmental advocacy and food manufacturing. Their ideas informed an exploration by all Dialogue attendees of the environmental, social, nutritional, and community resilience issues within the Australian dairy food system. Attendees investigated game-changing solutions for various sustainability issues across five sectors of the dairy supply chain: 1) Responsible dairy farming; 2) Responsible dairy processing; 3) Responsible transport of dairy produce; 4) Responsible consumption of dairy produce; and 5) Whole-of-chain solutions for responsible production and consumption. In the third and final session, What does the transformation look like? attendees explored possible changes for the dairy industry as part of the transformational change needed for sustainable food systems in 2030 and how these changes could be represented in the Australian Dairy Industry Sustainability Framework (ADISF). The ADISF is an initiative that sets goals, targets and metrics for the sustainable production and processing of Australian dairy products.235238239240244246248249Across the different supply chain sectors, four key areas for Australian dairy food systems were identified during the Dialogue: Nutrition, climate change, environmental issues and socioeconomic issues. During discussion, ideas to address these problems were also formulated. Nutrition: Less than 1% of Australians follow the Australian Dietary Guidelines, yet 15% of deaths are related to poor diets. Less than 10% of the Australian population claim to be eating enough healthy dairy foods. The biggest problem is discretionary (junk) foods which constitute 35% of what we eat. 58% of the average Australian family’s food budget goes to discretionary foods. The affordability of healthy diets is also a challenge – healthy diets are unaffordable for 30% of Australians. Alternative products are not the solution either as they are being revealed to be ultra-processed and damaging to health. Suggested Action: To address these issues, the group discussed the introduction of a 20% tax on discretionary foods that could be used to subsidise healthy diets for low-income families. Changing the location of discretionary foods in supermarkets and regulating their sale could also change consumer behaviour. Other ideas were to ramp up the culinary nutrition space to get people excited to eat healthy food and reduce junk food consumption, as well as improving cooking skills of Australians. Climate change: There is a global consensus through the IPCC that we need to act now on a transition to a sustainable food system. Food systems contribute 21-37% of anthropogenic emissions. The EAT-Lancet diet attempted to start a global conversation on sustainable food however it is too expensive for 1.5 billion people and is not aligned with national dietary guidelines. Improving food sustainability could increase the cost of production, so how these improvements get financed is also an issue that needs to be discussed. Suggested Action: To address these issues, the group discussed the need for more financial incentives and mechanisms to support a road to zero emissions and carbon sequestration. Shifting consumer purchasing habits to put a higher value on zero-emissions products, as well as increasing their readiness to pay for dairy was also a way to fund emissions mitigation. The development of methane abatement solutions, such as red seaweed, could be a major gamechanger. Uptake of renewable energy and electric vehicles would also help reduce emissions across the value chain. Lastly, support (both financial and skills-based) for farmers to implement sustainable development goals was a crucial part of the solution. Environment change: Conversations are evolving from mitigating negative impacts to also contributing positively to nature. There is an increasing demand by consumers that the dairy industry show its positive impacts on the environment. The environmental impact of alternative products is just being uncovered, for example almonds used for almond milk have a much higher water impact. Suggested Action: To address these issues, the group discussed increasing the uptake of regenerative agriculture practice so practice not just mitigates impact but also aims to restore nature. A key part of driving this impact will be providing dairy farmers with the tools and increasing financial support through corporate and institutional investment, government incentives to farmers for sustainable practice, better technology to drive a circular economy and reduce packaging waste, and models of consumption that push consumers to pay for more sustainable products. Socioeconomic: Lower income and farm diversity for dairy farmers lead to a more fragile food system that is less resilient to shocks alongside declining regional communities. COVID19 has shown that a reliance on export markets and international trade also exposes the sector to greater risk of disruption and can shift investment away from local communities. Making production more sustainable is likely to increase the costs of production, however dairy farmers cannot afford to bear these costs. Alternative products are also having collateral economic and social impacts, displacing economic pressure on shock-prone land systems such as Far North Queensland. Dairy farming is a multifunctional activity, it produces food whilst also helping to build regional communities and resilience. Suggested Action: To address these issues, the group discussed the need to share costs of sustainable development equitably across the value chain. Greater investment in small-scale farming, and encouragement of farmer and food cooperatives would help dairy industries grow local communities. Reducing reliance on export markets and imports will also help develop domestic industries and build resilience to global shocks like COVID19.236238239240244246248249Ideas for improving responsible dairy farming included: • Wide-spread adoption of regenerative agriculture practices and soil carbon farming, backed by farmers being paid income for the carbon stored in their soils • Developing feed supplements that can massively reduce methane emissions from cattle, with farmers potentially paid carbon credits for methane abatement • Encouraging more farmer and food cooperatives • Focusing on building small and resilient rural communities • Better resourcing and funding of extension and adoption including adoption of any sustainability goals; a roadmap for how farmers can implement any goals and improve; practical help to dairy farmers so they know what to do • Tougher compliance and regulatory measures, such as planning permits that align with the SDGs • More investment from corporates and big dairy farms into sustainable outcomes • Maintaining diverse dairy practices to bolster resilience • Providing financial incentives to farmers for sustainable outcomes, including ecosystem service payments, carbon payments, payments for improving practices • Introducing driverless small trucks that can operate 24/7 • Improving minimum standards and best practice for better sustainability outcomes • Standardisation and better monitoring for carbon sequestration • Improving particular practices including feeding cows better, composting, using home-grown fodder, silage wrap recycling, pain relief for dehorning, planting trees • Industry leaders admitting the need to change • Ensuring farms become energy self-sufficient • Improving refrigeration on farm and across the supply chain - smaller trucks could collect milk more frequently and improve efficiency of getting product to market236238239240244246248249Ideas for improving responsible dairy processing included: • Developing novel end-of-life plastic packaging technology using catalytic hydrothermal reactors that can convert plastic milk bottles into renewable biocrude oil that can then be reused to make plastics in a true circular economy • Learning from sustainable models like the one used by Arla Foods, e.g demand more from suppliers, encouraging and rewarding on-farm change • Talking not only about mitigating impact, but also making a positive impact on the environment • Reducing waste by aiming to only have water and salts as outputs • Improving packaging use in processing, e.g. through using recycled sugarcane packaging • Improving product shelf life by using smaller trucks with more frequent collection • Better metrics to compare products, and improve clarity of comparisons between dairy and non-dairy products236238239240244246248249Ideas for improving responsible transport of dairy produce included: • Transitioning to electric vehicles, this will need government support • Improving efficiency by reducing duplication of transport service with milk pick-up • Reducing the fuel use of transports236238239240244246248249Ideas for improving responsible consumption of dairy products included: • Changing consumer preferences towards buying and eating zero carbon emissions foods and more plant-based foods • Introducing a 20% tax on discretionary or junk food and drinks • Enhancing welfare payments, such as those introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic, that will allow low income and indigenous Australians to afford well-balanced diets rich in fruit, vegetables and low-fat dairy for their families • Changing the location of discretionary and junk foods in supermarkets, potentially limiting their sale through legislation and higher prices • Better communication about what each industry is doing on sustainability • Educating the public about food production • Dialling up the culinary nutrition space and getting people excited to eat healthy food and reduce junk food consumption • Reintroducing basic cooking skills • Reducing the number of overseas dairy products on shelves • Increasing the price of food • Combatting public misinformation • Improving trust in dairy by increasing transparency and acknowledging areas that need improvement • Transitioning to a bulk/wholesale model for consumption would reduce packaging whilst maintaining shelf life • Introducing pricing structures based on milk freshness so consumers can get older milk if they need to pay less; this will also reduce food waste • Reducing consumer food waste • Better understanding generational shifts in consumption patterns • Developing a sustainability food tick similar to the Heart Foundation tick • Embarking on a whole-of-agriculture campaign to show sustainability credentials of the industry • Providing a public definition of regenerative agriculture • Focusing on a single compelling sustainability message236238239240244246248249Ideas for improving responsible production and consumption across the whole value chain included: • Australia needs to continue being part of global discussions • Banks and institutional investors looking to ‘decarbonise’ their lending, favouring only low emissions sectors • Growing carbon trading and biodiversity credit markets • Increasing financing options across the value chain • Improving product integrity and communications across the value chain • More consistent metrics across the sector • Identifying and working with supporters237238239240244246248249There were five major areas of divergence: 1) Alternatives to animal-sourced foods (plant-based or cultured products) The importance of shifting towards alternatives as a key part of a more sustainable food system was raised by some, while others noted that alternatives are ultra-processed and lack the nutritional value of anima-sourced foods, leading to a negative impact on people’s health and nutritional outcomes. Alternatives are not necessarily more environmentally friendly – for example almonds have a very high-water cost. Dairy farming produces other benefits besides foods to regional communities which cannot be easily replicated by some alternatives. 2) Global trade Reliance on global trade often means less investment in local dairy industries which has a negative impact on regional communities and economic resilience. This reliance increases exposure to system shocks, such as COVID19. However, others noted that global trade allowed countries that were better positioned to produce food to help support the food security of people around the globe. Global trade helps shore up gaps to combat hunger and malnutrition. 3) Who bears the cost of sustainable development There was a fundamental tension between decent farmer income and the affordability of healthy diets for consumers. Making the food system more sustainable would increase costs of production, but who should pay the higher costs. While some noted that consumers should bear the costs, it was highlighted that 30% of Australians cannot afford a healthy diet with current prices. Most attendees agreed that farmers could not afford to bear the costs. Other suggestions included government, retailers, and dairy processors. 4) Larger vs smaller operations Some noted there should be a focus on supporting small-scale operations as this helps build up farm diversity and provides more support for regional communities and economies. Others highlighted that larger operations will be more efficient and productive, helping to reduce waste, emissions, resource use and overall environmental impact. 5) Consumer trust in food industries There was a tension between the dairy industry and consumers around the topic of trust. From one side, the dairy industry needed consumers to trust the industry so that legitimate sustainable products and services can be recognised and purchased encouraging more sustainable practice. On the other side, consumers remain wary of food industries, on the lookout for greenwashing and illegitimate claims, and seeking greater transparency.

2021-05-28 09:21:41204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/16187/203

2437210351171371006635231051112134464128292511212269122711103111

The dialogue was a consultative process that fully subscribed to the principles of engagement as outlined in the convenors manual. Different modes of engagement were adopted including Moderation, keynote speakers, and discussion.Keynote speakers were identified and requested to participate in the dialogue from their expertise in food systems and the link with higher agricultural education. The choice of keynote speakers was to stimulate discussion. The dialogue was moderated to encourage full participation

Yes

234238239240241242243244248249251The dialogue focused on the entry points for universities in the food systems transformation of Africa. Future transformation of Africa’s food systems requires innovative scientific, research, educational and training approaches, and thus Africa’s universities must be actively engaged in this transformation process. Universities need to act with greater urgency for pioneering new approaches in delivering collaborative regional education, training, research and innovation programs for improved food systems and greater development impact.235238239240241242243244246248249251The future transformation of food systems in Africa requires innovative research, education, and training approaches that are rooted in local contexts. Universities in Africa need to adapt and create knowledge to strengthen and transform the food systems through strengthening links and improving production, processing, storage, transport, food quality, and businesses that link them and consumers. Universities must play a crucial and more effective role in anticipating the skill-sets and knowledge demanded by rapidly changing food systems, and provide these skills and information in ways that trickle through the entire economy. In turn, the universities need to translate knowledge created into innovations that transform and develop potential to drive their own and Africa’s food system transformation. Now is the time to reassess and redesign the African universities and assist them to build their capacity to deliver Africa’s food system transformation. The COVID-19 pandemic was a wake up call to the glaring fragility and inequalities of the global, regional, and national agri-food systems, thus making the resolve for sustainable, inclusive, and resilient food systems extremely urgent. To build such food systems, there is need to examine existing systems and policies. Government leaders, policy makers, private sector, civil society, universities, research institutions, smallholder farmers, and other value chain actors, have a stake in shaping pathways for resilient and sustainable national food systems aligned with SDGs and Africa’s Agenda 2063.236238239240241242Discussion topic 1: Status of Food Systems In Africa: Key Drivers, Challenges And Needed Interventions There is need to strengthen food production to consumption fundamentals through STIs. This involves the development of yield enhancing resilient technologies (New varieties, breeds); value added and post-harvest reduction for diversified urbanizing populations; renewable production systems - climate change for posterity; and, effective and efficient knowledge generation (Agricultural Education and Advisory services) Development of human capital for the flourishing the food systems needs to be undertaken through balancing the human resource pyramid for science technology & innovations and entrepreneurship ; and leveraging and convergence, rather than competition, in science technology and innovations development and human capital development Africa needs to depend on its intelligence to inform its foresight and strategy investment planning, measurement, accountability and learning to inform investments and redesign of adaptation measures. African universities are best place to undertake this. Discussion topic 2: Emerging issues in West, Eastern and Southern Africa. Strategic thrusts to transform the food system include; • Develop human capital to innovate, adopt and enable transformed food systems • Increase Locally Relevant Research to create and adapt knowledge to strengthen value chains • Support Multi-stakeholder Platforms to Innovate and Scale to improve food and nutrition security • Improve Communication, Storing and Sharing advances and approaches and make them accessible to policymakers and from farm to table University and research need to; • Undertake resource mobilization to support human capital development • Feed the transformation of neglected value chain • Support Universities and research institution, but also for innovative and impact-oriented training model • Increase focus on practice-oriented training through establishment of hands-on practical units and stations within training institutions; and, development of enterprises that partner with universities in vocational training of graduates Discussion Topic Smallholder focus 1. Africa produces its food from two main types of systems: smallholder-based, highly diversified production systems and “progressive” semi-to-extensive production systems that are increasingly owned and managed by urban elite. 2. The smallholder farmers that feed and employ the vast majority of people, with women accounting for up to 70% of the labour force. 3. The primacy of Africa’s smallholder agriculture to underpin sustainable and equitable food systems that support food and nutrition security for all, for the present generations and posterity, is unequivocal and must be integral in discussions on global food systems. 4. The weak linkages between African smallholder farmers and research/extension, as well as agricultural markets must be strengthened. 5. Due to low technological advancements (hand held hoe) and other factors, African agriculture is not attractive to most youth.236238241242243249251Strengthening Human Capital Development (Skilling) 1. For Africa, especially Sub-Saharan Africa, to realize its full agricultural potential to bolster its food systems, there is need for significant investments in key productivity-enhancing innovations to harness science solutions for growth. 2. Only a fraction of smallholder farmers has requisite entrepreneurial ability, productive assets and skills potential for value addition. Skilling such populations, and in general, improving the labour productivity is critical for African agriculture to play a greater role in meeting local to global food demand, in a competitive and cost-effective and competitive manner. 3. A more holistic human capital development is required to build the agricultural workforce, from production, to research and innovations, as well as entrepreneurship. African universities are pivotal in designing and implementing human capital development programmes. 4. Universities themselves have to change how they do business and respond to emerging needs and advance processes and mechanisms that ensure that graduates appreciate agriculture and agribusiness as a source of employment and livelihood. 5. Africa must not outsource its food security (export jobs) but build capacity to bolster its global food production and export markets.

2021-05-28 16:48:17204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/7002/203

118053625603929111181111612117413196113391297

All 7 Principles of Engagement were used to design and implement this dialogue. They were largely incorporated into the structure of the dialogue itself. The topics that were selected represent the complexity of our food system and a commitment to the systemic approach that the UNFSS emphasizes. The dialogue was structured to allow participants to understand the landscape of the seaweed industry and then identify actions that can build it into a global but socially inclusive market that uplifts every stakeholder along the value chain. These principles were reinforced by our moderator, keynote speakers, and facilitators. Our moderator and facilitators created an inclusive space that lent itself to democratic debate and keynote speakers reiterated the importance of global food systems thinking and seaweed’s application.- Act with Urgency: Participants were asked to envision a future where seaweed has been fully integrated into our food system and identify short-term actions that should be taken in the next 2-3 years. Commit to the Summit: Important UNFSS stakeholders were included as keynote speakers, such as Dr. Martin Frick and Daniel Gustafson.These speakers reiterated the importance of holistic thinking and the ways seaweed can contribute to UNFSS goals. - Be Respectful: Topics such as social inclusion were chosen based on respect for marginalized communities. Facilitators maintained confidentiality and created an inclusive space. - Recognize Complexity: The diversity of topics reflected complexity and systems thinking. Topics were: Seaweed’s impact on the environment; social inclusion; nutrition and diet; economic development; innovation and financing innovation; seaweed on the farm; indigenous knowledge and culture; standards, policies, and institutions; value chain; production and scaling up; building a responsible and ethical seaweed industry; and production and consumption in Africa. - Embrace Multi-Stakeholder Inclusivity: Careful attention was paid to the invitee list and the demographic breakdowns in each breakout room. Small-holder farmers and women leaders were prominent voices. - Complement the Work of Others: This Dialogue was original in that it brought food system and seaweed stakeholders together to discuss and engage substantively. By its very nature it complemented the work of other actors in this space. - Build Trust: By first introducing food system stakeholders to seaweed stakeholders, the Dialogue provided an opportunity to build trust by exchanging information and answering questions. The second round of breakout rooms allowed for working together on a task, envisioning the future with seaweed fully integrated into the food system. Chatham House Rules guided breakout sessions and these were not recorded.- Train facilitators as early as possible so that they have a nuanced understanding of UNFSS goals and Principles of Engagement and so that they are comfortable using the prompting questions supplied. - Selecting and assigning the invitees to the discussion topics play an important role in engagement. For example, we were mindful of keeping the gender and industry ratios in the breakout rooms even, so that discussions would not be dominated by one group. Having women as facilitators can also help foster inclusivity. - Note-takers are crucial to the recording of the discussions. Having more than one note-taker in each room, with one focused on verbatim note-taking and the other focused specifically on overarching messages to report out, can help to capture the full conversation. - Not being attached to the outcome of the discussion allows for the participants in a room to feel more at ease expressing their views - Allow for rich conversations in the chat--they can be taken to the rooms as well - Structure the dialogue as a dialogue--allow people to have rich conversations - embrace the breakout room format - Source help outside of your organization, collaborate, and seek opportunities for partnership. Working with graduate students significantly enhanced the quality of this Dialogue.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251This Dialogue had three aims: 1. Introduce seaweed to a variety of food system actors 2. Explore its potential to help address global food system and development challenges, along with barriers to that potential. 3. Visualize a food system in 2050 with seaweed fully integrated. This Dialogue was about how the food system can harness the power of seaweed to contribute to the sustainability of our food system, now and in the future. Participants, drawn from both seaweed and food system stakeholders, explored how seaweed can be a new foundation of ecosystem restoration through aquaculture and equitable blue food systems. The Dialogue highlighted the untapped potential of seaweed to contribute, through regenerative aquaculture, to restoring ocean health while helping ease hunger, malnutrition, and other global challenges. It also brought to light obstacles to achieving that vision.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251This Dialogue was conducted using a mix of plenary discussions and breakout rooms. There were two rounds of breakout discussions. In the first round, participants discussed the current state of play of seaweed and the food system. Breakout rooms covered social inclusion, environmental impact, nutrition, economic development, innovation, agricultural development, indigenous knowledge and culture, policy and regulations, and the value chain. Among the many rich themes that emerged from this first round of discussions, a few highlights were: - the potential of seaweed on multiple fronts, including as a feed source for fish and livestock and as a carbon sequestration vehicle; - the need for international standards and regulations, and more generally for global collaboration, especially given that seaweed often does not have a clear institutional “home”; - the importance of ensuring secure tenure for smallholders; - creating a platform for sharing best practices among producers; - exploring integrating seaweed into children’s diets; - seaweed and the economic empowerment of women and youth; - the lack of financing for seaweed enterprises and a need for more investment in small scale farmers and advocacy along the value chain; and - the key role of stakeholders like chefs in communicating broadly about seaweed. In the second round, participants visualized themselves in 2050 and envisioned the pathway to achieving a future food system with seaweed fully integrated. Key points emerging from those sessions: - Production and scaling up: Better capture the ecosystem services seaweed provides; manage tensions between scaling up and challenges such as environmental and food safety; and involve producers more equitably. - Financing innovation: Rebrand and repackage seaweed projects to better appeal to blue investors; protect the intellectual property of coastal communities; better understand market signs and production costs; and collaborate across stakeholders. - Nutrition and diet: Recognize its nutritional value and its potential as a fortifying agent, acknowledging the cultural dimensions of taste and flavor; Asian youth and chefs could be key communicators. - Building the industry responsibly and ethically: Develop globally harmonized health and safety standards, with farmers at the heart of plans; invest inclusively to assure tenure rights and ownership protections for producers, especially family farmers and co-ops, so they have secure access to markets and value chains; focus on women, indigenous people, and youth; and set up training and knowledge hubs. European stakeholders emphasized regulation of larger companies and space for smaller farmers to collaborate and have negotiating power. - Production and consumption in Africa: A collaborative, demand-driven, farmer/producer-oriented approach is called for, that identifies the continent’s assets – including a long coastline and relatively cheap labor – together with better communication of the science and of the social benefits of seaweed, including employment opportunities for women and improved nutrition for all. These outcomes are discussed in greater depth below. Since the feedback report limits the number of outcome topics to ten, attached is a document that covers the additional four topics discussed during this Dialogue.236238240242243244246249250Round 1: Environment Key Takeaways - The need for more data and evidence to better understand the risks of mass cultivation for carbon sequestration - The importance of the role of government and policy - Seaweed as a climate friendly alternative ruminant livestock feed source In this session, participants discussed the need to be aware of the risks involved in scaling up production and the importance of data, the role of government policy, and potential of seaweed as a livestock feed. They shared their unique perspectives and various suggestions for ways to manage risk, areas of the world to look towards for examples, and next steps to take in regards to seaweed and the environment. The participants agreed that there is a need to better understand the potential risks involved in scaling up the production of seaweed to sequester large quantities of carbon. Questions such as, “what is the planet’s production capacity for seaweed?,” “how much seaweed is being produced currently?,” and “what is the sustainable limit - to avoid over harvesting and bringing harm to existing ecosystems?” were settled on as the most important questions to be answered before we can take big steps toward large-scale seaweed production for climate resilience. In order to answer these questions, all agreed that the currently disjointed seaweed industry and scientific communities needed to come together and pool their research. The role of governments was also an important topic in this breakout room, one which led to some divergence in opinion. Some participants felt that too much “red tape” was stifling the seaweed industry and making it unnecessarily hard for small producers to compete. They felt that unfair regulations in the industry resulted in the success of only big businesses, leaving little room for innovation or scientific discoveries. Others felt that the issue of government regulations and policies was a delicate one with much complexity. While they agreed that too many harsh regulations could stifle a fairly new industry, they felt that some regulation was needed, for example to avoid possible environmental harm on ocean ecosystems. They cited cautionary tales from other aquaculture industries and shared lessons learned, and ultimately circled back to the need for more data to overcome fear and uncertainty in the industry. The participants also discussed seaweed as a potential feed source for livestock, one that could possibly reduce methane emissions. All agreed that this was a fascinating and potentially win-win usage for seaweed globally. Not only does just a small amount of seaweed, particularly asparagopsis, significantly cut methane emissions from ruminant livestock but some participants pointed out that the production of seaweed does not require fresh water or fertilizer, compared to traditional feed sources. Therefore, not only would seaweed cut down on GHG emissions, but it would also reduce the use of resources and harmful run-off if widely used in the livestock industry. The session concluded with all of the participants agreeing that seaweed has many uses that make it a potentially powerful tool in climate mitigation. The only obstacle to this in their view was the need to overcome uncertainty in the industry with data and evidence. To accomplish this, the participants agreed the Western world needed to look to Asia as an example of how to cultivate seaweed successfully and learn from those who have been involved in the industry for decades.236241243245246247249251Round 1: Social Inclusion Key Takeaways: - Empower women - Diversify livelihood opportunities for coastal communities - Increase support for smallholder farms, including to help balance power relationships - Foster stronger institutional support. Participants shared their experiences with the seaweed industry and the extent it provides livelihood opportunities to coastal communities and marginalized groups. They then offered suggestions to make the industry more inclusive. The discussion on women’s empowerment focused on the need for gender-specific training and protective gear. For example, women in Tanzania are pushed to farm seaweed in ever deeper waters due to ocean warming, leading to a number of unsafe conditions. In the Tanzanian context, women are not taught to swim so additional training and gear is needed to ensure their safety. Local governments and multilateral institutions must provide these resources to create a socially inclusive industry. The lack of investment in smallholder farms is a primary challenge to social inclusion. A few participants noted that institutions in the Global North are uncomfortable working at the local level. Joint marketing and direct investments can go a long way in supporting small scale farmers. This would bring them closer to consumers in the value chain, promote technical innovation, and create a market that can sustain these farmers and their families. Participants agreed that institutions need to understand how seaweed benefits the families and small operations who produce it. Political will is an important component to ensure advocacy along the entirety of the value chain. This requires the buy-in of policy makers. Diversifying livelihood opportunities for coastal communities and bringing them into the global market requires accountability and knowledge transfer. A number of participants indicated that large scale seaweed farms hold the power despite an industry that consists primarily of small scale operations. These farms often resort to “ocean grabbing” which lowers the price of seaweed and makes it difficult for coastal communities to compete. All the participants agreed that a knowledge sharing platform amongst small scale farmers is necessary. This would allow them to share best practices and understand the value chain. Lastly, a global market for seaweed cannot be achieved without changing consumer preferences. It is important to invest in marketing that increases demand for seaweed where it is not normally part of the diet. The seaweed industry is on the precipice of expansion and it is necessary to set the tone now in order to ensure social inclusion. Multilateral institutions and local governments must work closely with smallholder farmers to provide necessary resources and investments. These public-private partnerships will be the foundation for global standards and producer rights as the industry grows.236238239247248249251Round 1: Nutrition Key Takeaways: - Seaweed’s many nutritional benefits - Opportunities to integrate seaweed as a sustainable and nutritious food globally - Barriers to introducing seaweed into Western diets Participants brought experience in innovation, research, food security, cooking and consumption, and policy-making. Combining thier unique perspectives, they were tasked with discussing the nutritional benefits of seaweed and how to leverage those benefits to more fully integrate seaweed into the food system. The participants considered the nutritional benefits and opportunities for seaweed as a tool to fight global hunger and malnutrition. Seaweed is a source of natural iodine, B12, protein, iron, and other micronutrients. One participant mentioned that the naturally occurring iodine in seaweed is a transformative mineral, but there is a need to educate the market to debunk the misconception that the danger of overdosing on iodine outweighs the gains. Participants stressed that the opportunities for seaweed as a sustainable and nutritious food and alternative protein , the participants stressed. It can be substituted for harmful ingredients and chemicals that are used in processed food since it can be used as a stabilizer and thickening agent. By scaling up seaweed production for nutritious consumption, the industry also creates jobs for women and smallholder farmers which can be beneficial in diversifying income sources. The group also focused on barriers to integrating seaweed into Western diets and consumption patterns, as well as places in the eastern hemisphere where seaweed is not typically consumed, but could be a beneficial tool to fight malnutrition. Participants came up with three concrete suggestions to break down these barriers: (i) public education, (ii) marketing and media that highlight the nutritional benefits of seaweed, and (iii) creating a centralized institution that can implement an international coordinated effort to increase knowledge and demand. One participant talked about how current economic forces push products like soy since there is a large market for meat alternatives now. They then articulated how if done responsibly, products created from certain seaweed species could enter the meat alternative market and provide key micronutrients, similar to those gained from eating meat, like Vitamin B12 and protein. This breakout group concluded their discussion on seaweed and nutrition by brainstorming next steps to follow-up on efforts to more fully integrate seaweed into diets. Participants suggested the following ideas: increase institutional financing to increase downstream demand, improve the messaging around the nutritional benefits of seaweed through media and education, incorporate seaweed into processed foods and culturally specific diets, create school lunch programs that test school children's nutrition and look at gaps that seaweed could fill, and lastly eat more seaweed!236238239241244245246249Round 1: Economic Development Key Takeaways: - Integrate seaweed into the food system from early childhood - Support local seaweed products, encourage variety of seaweed consumption and use at restaurants - Governments need to pay attention to regulations and innovation of seaweed industry At the beginning of the discussion, many participants expressed their thoughts on how we can better integrate seaweed into the food system. Many said that modernization of seaweed is important; for example, it should be integrated as part of normal diets from early childhood. It is a common food in East Asia, but not as much in other parts of the world. There is a unique culture around the sushi industry, where seaweed is in common use, but other potential seaweed products would also support seaweed consumption. Seaweed snacks are one example of such a product. In addition to encouraging more consumption, there is a need to focus on supply-side challenges. It is important to understand if there is enough supply and labor to fuel our desired level of consumption in the food system. Participants talked about the unlimited potential of seaweed including as animal feed, a contributor to regenerating ocean ecosystems, food, and a sustainable alternative to plastic. One concern is that seaweed’s price may not be accessible to a full range of consumers, therefore participants discussed possibilities of fair price ranges for different types of seaweed, which would allow for more restaurants to use it as a central ingredient within their menus. In order for smallholder farmers to gain a fair profit, they have to triple their current price and have to develop different varieties of seaweed products. There are quality differences between local (North American) and Japanese seaweed. “If you want to support local, local is good, but if you want the best, restaurants go for the Japanese seaweed,” as one of the participants told the group. Participants expressed concern that it is hard to change habits, so it is going to be hard to bring about large scale change. The group concluded by discussing the need for the government to pay attention to regulation and innovation of the seaweed industry.236239240245246248249Round 1: Innovations Key Takeaways: - The need for the diversification of seaweed’s usages - How to popularize seaweed as a food source to a Western consumer base - A lack of seaweed-centric institutions results in lack of collaboration, research, and funding The participants all agreed that a primary issue the seaweed industry faces is under exploration of the various ways in which seaweed can be used in the food industry. In order to overcome this challenge, participants suggested the creation of institutions which would support innovations and exploration of seaweed food applications. Participants also agreed that seaweed diversity is underexplored. They expressed the need to explore the use of species other than kelp, especially varieties native to their respective production zones. Some participants expressed the opinion that seaweed as an additive to foods for nutritional purposes needed to be further investigated, as it could lead to a popular and lucrative market. The primary concern that participants expressed when discussing the consumer perspective was the challenge of popularizing seaweed as a food source to a Western audience. They cited the lack of familiarity and understanding as a challenge that marketing and PR would need to overcome with an awareness campaign about the benefits of eating seaweed. They also agreed that seaweed could slowly be introduced to the market as an additive to foods, such as an alternative protein source or as an iodine supplement. Participants all voiced that they believed seaweed has many applications and opportunities for incorporation into Western diets, it just needs marketable appeal. In the end, the participants agreed that focusing on innovations in seaweed as an additive was a more achievable short-term goal, whereas popularizing seaweed in the west as a staple would be a more long-term goal. When discussing how to finance innovations, the participants noted that a lack of seaweed institutions meant a lack of support to the industry. This lack of funding is what keeps the costs of producing and processing seaweed high, which hurts its market potential. All felt that the creation of seaweed research and funding institutions could provide financial support to the industry, bring costs down, and make scaling-up production a more achievable goal. Some participants also noted that lack of utilization of all parts of the plant keeps costs high. They urged innovation in utilizing all parts of seaweed, as they believed this would bring production costs down as well. They felt this would not only expand the market for seaweed, but also lower threshold costs for producers. Lastly, the participants touched on the environmental concerns surrounding seaweed production. They agreed that as the market is currently underdeveloped, there are not adequate regulatory tools to measure and monitor food quality across producers. This, they felt, was a challenge to overcome and cited the important role seaweed institutions and governments could play in creating a universal standard. Additionally, they circled back to the need for a wider variety of seaweed species to be used for food, as kelp being a dominant species could lead to a monoculture issue in the oceans. Overall, the participants had a lively and engaging discussion surrounding the possibilities for innovation and finance in the seaweed industry and how to better popularize seaweed in the food world. They all agreed that smart marketing of seaweed, the creation of seaweed research and financing institutions, and uniform standards were actionable areas for next steps towards integration to be made.236238239240243244246248249Round 1: Seaweed on the Farm Key Takeaways: - Need to sustainably scale up seaweed production to provide for agricultural purposes - Integrating seaweed into agricultural practices and the Western hemisphere requires industry regulations, educational resources, and standardized practices for farmers Throughout this breakout session, the participants had a highly engaging discussion about seaweed’s potential uses and benefits in agriculture. The group began the discussion by focusing on the challenges behind integrating the seaweed industry into Western production and consumption. They articulated that one of the main challenges behind this was the current (lack of) regulations and standards as the industry moves from the Eastern hemisphere. An animated discussion began around the potential uses of seaweed within traditional agriculture. The participants highlighted that it can be used as fertilizer additions and as feed alternatives to the standard animal diets of soy and corn. Using seaweed as feed may lower methane production from livestock, especially cattle, the largest GHG source attributed to the agriculture sector. The group noted the need for both regulation and education within this area so those that produce seaweed for agriculture do it in a sustainable and regenerative manner. The discussion then pivoted to integrating seaweed into farming culture and agricultural practices in general. Many farmers may never have heard about the benefits of seaweed for livestock production and as a fertilizer for cultivation. A participant suggested creating a central resource to educate farmers looking to use seaweed where they can learn about good practices and where to responsibly source their seaweed additives from. All participants agreed that there needs to be further research conducted in a centralized manner around seaweed production for the specific use of it as feed, fertilizer, and in biorefinery. Lastly, the participants discussed how to scale up seaweed production to provide adequate sourcing for agricultural uses since one of the challenges at the moment is the small amounts of seaweed for use in agriculture. One participant felt it would be difficult to grow one aquatic product on a massive scale without having large environmental impacts. This led the group to agree that seaweed production has to be diversified and done sustainably by adding to aquatic ecosystems in a regenerative way rather than growing, harvesting, and polluting ecosystems. They concluded that integrated multi-trophic aquaculture is a solution to this problem and will allow the industry to scale up in a sustainable manner. The discussion concluded with remarks on the potential of seaweed to have remarkable, positive impacts on agriculture and through it to translate to beneficial impacts for the environment.236239240241244247Round 1: Indigenous Knowledge and Culture Key Takeaways: - Elevation of Indigenous and traditional seaweed farmer voices - The need for advocacy, education, and promotion around the consumption of diversified food resources, including seaweed The first topic this room dealt with was how to better integrate seaweed into the food system. Several of the participants noted that seaweed has not been enjoyed at home or as a food product for the majority of the world so far, and that needs to change for successful food system integration. One participant stated that especially in the United States, it is a challenge for people to use seaweed in their homes and consume it regularly. As such, they said, the growth of the seaweed industry should focus largely on creating products that are accessible and easy to use in regular meals. One proposed solution was to develop a powdered form of seaweed that can be incorporated into flour for higher health benefits. The topic of industry growth took off for this group. A participant brought up the issue of marine tenure. Farmers need relatively exclusive access to the area they farm, which is not always possible or easily navigable for the farmers. On the other hand, there could be complementarities, as highlighted by a participant who shared the experience of Maine, which has more coastline than California and a rich history of shellfish farming, such as lobsters; the infrastructure needed for kelp farming and lobster farming is the same; and its lobster and kelp industries are actually co-synchronous, meaning that these farmers could have employment opportunities all year round by alternating between the two, especially given their expertise in lobster farming. . The conversation then shifted to the changes needed in the current industry and institutions. One of the participants noted that although seaweed is a relatively new player in Western industry, there is a rich base of Indigenous knowledge and history. Seaweed is the largest part of aquaculture globally, but is mainly produced at a small-scale by family businesses. Another participant expressed concern that the voices of Indigenous cultures and traditional producers are not well-represented in this burgeoning industry, making it more difficult for aquatic foods to get the prominence they need in spaces such as the Food Systems Summit. The participants concluded with a discussion about how to get these important voices heard and elevate the growth of the seaweed industry. One participant stressed that people should be in conversation with the member state representatives to the Food Systems Summit to stress the importance of Indigenous knowledge and aquatic foods for our collective food system. Another participant spoke of the need to create a strong coalition between powerful international organizations such as the FAO, the UN Environment Programme, the World Bank, and others. Together, they said, these organizations can send a strong signal as to the importance of this industry. All of the participants in this room agreed that there is a need for advocacy, education, and promotion around the consumption of diversified food resources, including seaweed.236240243249Round 1: Standards, Policies, and Institutions Key Takeaways: - Standardize global regulations on seaweed - Encourage best practices and advocacy for smallholder producers - Increase data collection efforts The participants discussed a number of challenges related to the regulatory landscape of the seaweed industry. The primary issue is the lack of standardized regulations on seaweed’s food safety and nutritional content. For example, iodine standards in Europe limit some species of seaweed but these standards vary greatly across regions. While a number of participants mentioned that there is very low risk of nutritional contamination of seaweed, they also highlighted the need to harmonize global standards to ensure a safe market for consumers. This harmonization is a challenge to seaweed’s integration since an overarching, international regulating body does not exist. While participants noted the preeminence of Codex International as a food standard setting organization, they also noted that a number of countries still utilize their own standards. While one participant advocated for creation of a global seaweed association, others suggested instead that dialogue with policymakers is necessary in addition to advocacy for farmers. The participants noted that an ideal regulatory environment for seaweed would encourage best practices and advocacy for smallholder producers. A couple of participants cited the importance of family-centric approaches and effectiveness of the farmer field school approach, emphasizing the importance of government investment in family farmer organizations and cooperatives. Policies that protect these farmers and encourage their participation will be important for growing the industry in an inclusive manner. Furthermore, national authorities must commit to joint data collection efforts that can inform standards and policies. In addition, a farmer field school approach raises the capacity for producers to innovate, create solutions, and standardize practices.236238240243245249Round 1: Understanding the Seaweed Value Chain Key Takeaways: - Seaweed producers worldwide face issues of lack of regulation and seaweed-specific policies - Address inefficiencies to biomass cultivation - A need to re-brand seaweed - Data collection & value chain mapping are priority actions in the short term In this session, participants identified a number of key challenges facing the industry’s integration into our food system. The group then offered a few short-term actions. Many of these participants agreed that the inefficiencies on the producer side are often context-driven. Ocean warming has pushed farmers in Africa to cultivate seaweed in deeper, unsafe waters. More training and education on the cultivation process for these producers is a primary need. In India, on the other hand, inefficiencies arise from the seaweed industry’s conflation with fisheries. Dedicated regulations for the seaweed industry, protections for seaweed producers, and a clearly laid out plan to get seaweed into the marketplace are necessary. These regulatory challenges are a problem facing producers around the globe. At the consumer level, procuring locally sourced seaweed is still a problem facing many restaurants. This logistics challenge has raised the price of seaweed for consumers in the Global North, since it must be imported. There is a need for sustainably sourced seaweed in countries that are not traditional producers. This calls for stronger cross-country, collaborative efforts that raise the capacity of nascent seaweed producers through knowledge transfer and investment. Seaweed also faces a branding challenge, primarily due to the name of the product itself. Changing the name to something more appealing, such as sea vegetable, could facilitate marketing and grow demand for the product. Efforts to address this branding challenge should also highlight food safety and occupational safety for producers. Data collection and value chain mapping efforts were seen as priority actions. These could begin with a comprehensive mapping of edible seaweed species, the regions in which they are produced, how much is available, and how it can be used. This process can lead to accountability and help ensure that producers receive a fair price for their work. In general, the participants cited a crucial need for stronger collaboration and exchange across the board. Whether this is through knowledge transfer to nascent producers, joint marketing projects, sharing of best practices, or increased investments in seaweed enterprise and research, stakeholders from across the globe must work together to advocate for seaweed along the value chain.236239240243244246249Round 2: Production and Scaling Up Key Takeaways: - Governments and private sector actors work together to create conducive regulatory environments, foster innovation, and raise awareness about seaweed’s positive contributions to sustainability, especially nutrition and climate - Early priorities include creating and growing high-value markets for seaweed, for instance as alternative proteins, livestock feed, and biodegradable packaging. - Creating a viable blue carbon market is another priority area Participants were asked to reflect on how seaweed was able to be scaled-up and meet production needs in a world in 2050 with seaweed fully integrated into the food system. All agreed that governments would need to play an important role, especially by creating a “kind” regulatory environment around seaweed, one that balanced risk but also left room for producers to explore and innovate. They also emphasized the need for governments to get involved in raising awareness around the potentials of seaweed as a carbon sink, a feed source, and a nutritious food source. Participants felt that if governments could pave the way in the awareness campaign on seaweed, then the private sector would be more successful in selling higher value seaweed products. Some participants suggested looking towards Japan and Korea as great examples of governments integrating seaweed into a multitude of industries and creating a balanced regulatory environment conducive to successful markets. Developing markets and market avenues for seaweed products in the west was discussed as a key step in integrating seaweed into the food system. Most participants felt that producers would not scale-up production without high value markets for seaweed and scope for innovation. Such markets would include alternative proteins, clothing dye, and livestock feed.. Another topic was blue carbon. All agreed that governments had a crucial role to play in creating a blue carbon market for seaweed, to encourage its production around the world and strongly support climate change mitigation. Seaweed could help pioneer a fledgling market and set good standards for the blue carbon industry. They cited the important role government policy would play in creating and regulating this industry, and discussed how critical collaboration and cooperation would be in determining the success of seaweed in blue carbon. The session concluded with an overall agreement that seaweed in 2021 was an industry replete with exciting opportunities. Capitalizing on these opportunities depended on the right players, like governments and the private sector, coming together to create a balanced regulatory environment.237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The dialogue prompted lively discussions, especially during the breakout sessions and in the chat. One area of debate that brought diverse perspectives was centered on the topic of financing the seaweed movement and industry integration in non-producing countries, many of which are in the Western hemisphere. All participants acknowledged that there is a need for ambitious action in bringing seaweed to the forefront of food systems as a game changing solution to issue areas like climate change, malnutrition, women and youth empowerment, and more. Yet there were differing views on where the financing for the integration of scaled-up production of seaweed would come from and whether it should be allocated on the basis of issue area. For example, should seaweed be financed by global funds focused on climate finance and if so, what steps need to be taken to get to said point? Alternatively, is the best approach to decentralize financing and integrate the growing seaweed movement into the current industry, scaling up by getting more smallholder farmers introduced to seaweed and aquaculture? Some divergence also came around the topic of regulations and the role of the private sector versus governments in creating these regulations. Some participants felt that governments needed to play a strong role in creating safe regulatory environments to prevent unintended harm to ecosystems and consumers from lack of information. Others felt that the current state of regulations, particularly in Europe, were already too restrictive and not conducive to small scale producers being able to compete. They also felt a strict regulatory environment stifled innovation, and that a kinder environment, led by the private sector, would encourage increased innovations in seaweed usage and applications. There were mixed opinions when it came to integrating seaweed into diets globally. For example, some participants believed that although there are some paths to introducing seaweed to more regions that do not traditionally consume it, it will be difficult to change dietary norms on a large scale. Some felt that would be particularly challenging for Africa, despite its great potential, because it does not have the cultural or traditional background in seaweed farming or consumption to immediately become an industry leader. Another area of divergence revolved around food safety. Some felt toxicants that can be found in seaweed present a serious issue for human consumption. On the other hand, it was noted that although seaweed does absorb substances from the sea, so does everything else that we consume from the ocean, including fish and other sea vegetables. Most participants in these discussions agreed that further research was necessary to truly understand this dimension of seaweed. One group diverged in opinions on whether or not there were clear benefits for organic aquaculture and whether or not sustainability has to include organic. Views ranged from there being a need for certified organic and regenerative aquaculture to handling this issue via integrated multi-trophic aquaculture that doesn’t necessarily need to be harvested in the ocean nor organic. By the end of the discussion the group agreed that there are clear benefits to both, but whether or not seaweed’s form of sustainability should take on one or the other was left for further discussion. An unresolved divergence of views concerned whether or not to create a new international agency focused on seaweed. I. Most participants expressed that there is no need to form a new organization, rather to strengthen existing UN organizations, especially FAO, to better incorporate seaweed into its work, through its clear linkages to multiple SDGs. Others noted the need for building strong cooperatives or federations to provide the full range of value chain services to members, especially smallholders, and represent the voices of seaweed family farmers in governance.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Additional-Topics-Covered.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Keynote-Speakers-Graphic.jpghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Round-1-Discussion-Topics-Graphic-scaled.jpghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Round-2-Discussion-Topics-Graphic-scaled.jpghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Closing-Remarks-Graphic-scaled.jpghttps://unglobalcompact.org/library/5743

2021-05-29 01:35:36204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/6307/203

86094327734371554113911556361651313214239

1) El diálogo tuvo como foco dialogar cómo el Enfoque Una Salud, incluida la salud del suelo, y el comercio internacional pueden contribuir en la transición hacia sistemas alimentarios más sostenibles. 2) Los grupos de trabajo – discusión - se pensaron y organizaron de manera que se promoviera el diálogo abierto y la participación de todos. Además, se buscó que la discusión y construcción de propuestas estuviera alineada a las vías de acción de la Cumbre de Sistemas Alimentarios. 3) El diálogo buscó motivar la discusión y pensamiento crítico respecto a enfoques integrados (una salud, salud de los suelos) y el comercio internacional. Estos temas requieren un abordaje integrado y multidisciplinario para su mejor análisis en el marco de los sistemas alimentarios. 4) Para el diálogo se convocó a participantes del sector público, privado, la academia, ONGs y se brindó como IICA un espacio neutral y seguro para la participación de todos. 5) Una vez finalizado el diálogo los insumos generados se utilizarán para seguir construyendo las propuestas y recomendaciones para ponerlas a disposición de la Cumbre.Involucramos a técnicos y especialistas del IICA de diferentes regiones y disciplinas. Además, se invitaron a los socios en diversos campos (sector público, academia, gremiales, sociedad civil, organismos de integración regional y cooperación internacional, etc.) La mayor parte del tiempo del evento se destinó a los grupos de trabajo, donde se discutió libremente sobre acciones en materia de Una Salud, salud de los suelos y comercio internacional para acelerar la transformación de los sistemas alimentarios. Los facilitadores de los grupos de trabajo buscaron en todo momento equilibrar los tiempos de participación y dar voz a todos los integrantes. Además, se contó con tomadores de nota que iban sistematizando los acuerdos y divergencias resultantes del grupo, que después eran puestos a validación/retroalimentación dentro del mismo espacio de discusión grupal. Las conclusiones/recomendaciones resultantes servirán para la construcción de propuestas de game changing solutions.

Yes

234238240242244249La contribución del enfoque una salud, incluyendo los suelos sanos, y el comercio internacional en la transición hacia sistemas alimentarios más sostenibles.235238240242243244246248249Entre los principales mensajes del diálogo se encuentra que: ­Se dio un gran consenso respecto a que la agricultura es la base fundamental del sistema alimentario. Asimismo, es requerido un especial énfasis en el productor y el sector privado. ­Es necesario ampliar la visión sobre la agricultura debido a que tiene un impacto multidimensional en la salud, la nutrición, la seguridad alimentaria, el medio ambiente, la biodiversidad y, por lo tanto, es un factor importante para transformar los sistemas alimentarios para lograr la agenda 2030. ­Se coincidió en que la agricultura debe de ser organizada, resiliente y sostenible. ­Es importante tener una mirada sistémica que integre la interfaz entre la salud humana, animal, vegetal y del ecosistema. Al mejorar la relación entre la calidad del suelo y de los alimentos, se incide en la seguridad alimentaria nacional e internacional. Asimismo, no se puede pensar de manera independiente solo desde la agricultura, sin considerar temas económicos, ambientales, geográficos y sociales. Se reconoció que los suelos constituyen la base de la salud de los ecosistemas y los sistemas de producción de alimentos. Al mejorar la salud del suelo, que afecta a la biodiversidad, conduce a tener alimentos saludables y personas saludables. Por lo tanto, se deben abordar los problemas de la degradación del suelo como base para la construcción de sistemas alimentarios saludables. Se debe tener una mirada sistémica: sin ecosistemas sanos no tenemos seres humanos sanos. ­Se resaltó la importancia del fortalecimiento de la integración intersectorial e interinstitucional pública, es decir, promover trabajo entre ministerios y decisores de política, trabajo interdisciplinario – en particular para el comercio y la interfaz de Una Salud-, y que existan lineamientos desde el más alto nivel de Política Pública Nacional articulado con las realidades locales. ­Es necesario promover una cultura de inocuidad, basada en la ciencia. Asimismo, promover políticas que atiendan la sanidad e inocuidad tanto hacia mercados internacionales, como locales. ­Se reconoció que en el pasado, el abordaje “Una Salud” se ha enfocado en la contaminación microbiana / biológica, contaminación ambiental y el desperdicio, sin embargo, es necesario ir más allá e incluir aspectos directamente relacionados con la calidad del suelo para avanzar en todas las interfases del abordaje una salud. ­El comercio internacional de América Latina y el Caribe es relevante no solo como generador de divisas y de empleo, sino también como impulsor de la implementación de nuevas y mejoras prácticas. En este sentido es un factor indispensable para desarrollar el potencial de la agricultura de la región y para fortalecer su aporte a la seguridad alimentaria global y a la consecución de sistemas alimentarios inclusivos y sostenibles. ­Resaltó la necesidad de la diversificación tanto de los mercados como de los productos. Asimismo, promover nichos de mercado a través de la diferenciación de productos y la creación de más instalaciones de procesamiento y almacenamiento. ­Atender desde la educación y capacitación los retos en estos temas. ­Es sumamente importante detectar aquellas regiones y zonas rurales más vulnerables al cambio climático y a los desastres naturales. En el caso del Caribe es importante trabajar en conjunto con otras regiones.236238240241242243244246248249251● Educación: promover más pensamiento sistémico y práctico desde la escuela, secundaria y la universidad respecto al concepto de Una Salud, el comercio y sus interconexiones con los sistemas alimentarios para comprender mejor la manera como impacta en nuestras vidas. ● Promover el trabajo intersectorial y fortalecer los sistemas productivos locales. ● Fortalecimiento del sector privado (colaboraciones público-privadas). Importancia de que el sector privado participe de estos procesos. ● Creación de centro de comercio y de economías de escala para diversificar los puertos de transbordo efectivo, fuera de los EE. UU. , en línea directa hacia y desde el Canal de Panamá. ● Diseñar un plan sistemático que promueva mayores vínculos entre todas las instituciones y disciplinas involucradas para contribuir al sistema alimentario y al comercio internacional. ● Mayor unificación en la región Caribe, mejoras en las relaciones de trabajo y crear una marca de productos caribeños. ● Promover mayor trazabilidad en la producción, desde el suelo en adelante a todas las prácticas agrícolas. ● Contar con un mapeo de zonas o regiones más vulnerables a eventos extremos, así como registro de la temporalidad probable de los mismos, para atender posibles disrupciones de los sistemas de producción, comercio y consumo (incluido el local). ● Crear bases de producción estratégica en Guyana y Surinam para el Caribe, debido a que son menos propensos a los choques relacionados con el clima. ● Hay que generar condiciones para mejorar significativamente la calidad de la vida en los territorios rurales, que incluye el bienestar de los ecosistemas y de los grupos humanos, como las comunidades indígenas, los agricultores familiares, las mujeres rurales y los jóvenes. ● Promover a nivel de tomadores de decisiones la implementación de lo necesario para incorporar el concepto de “Una salud” y consolidar los servicios veterinarios en unión con el resto de actores de la cadena agroalimentaria y los tomadores de decisiones o hacedores de políticas públicas. ● Para potenciar rol estratégico del comercio agroalimentario de la región en el desarrollo y la trasformación de los sistemas alimentarios, se pueden impulsar medidas que: ­1) promuevan la liberalización del comercio las cuales contribuyen a facilitar el abastecimiento y aumentan la disponibilidad y diversidad de alimentos y dietas, ­2) faciliten el comercio para mejorar los tiempos de logística, la distribución de alimentos y la agilización de las aduanas ­3) favorezcan una mayor disponibilidad de productos inocuos y mejoran la salud animal y vegetal que estén respaldadas científicamente y armonizadas internacionalmente, y ­4) que promuevan prácticas sostenibles, el acceso a tecnologías limpias y bienes ecológicos. ● Si bien las acciones vinculadas con el acceso a mercados, son producto de negociaciones intergubernamentales, son las empresas las que desarrollan los procesos de exportación, por ello se deben impulsar espacios de diálogo público privado, para asegurar la convergencia de los intereses y el cumplimiento de los objetivos planteados ● Desarrollo de políticas agrícolas que involucren todos los aspectos de los sistemas alimentarios y demuestren la interfaz existente. También se debe tener en cuenta la perspectiva de género.237No se identificaron áreas de divergencia.

2021-05-29 09:15:04205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/16588/39

1204070108634404032021145102010116066

This dialogue was designed to maximise the opportunities for participants to view the presentation of business ideas using video and live streaming.Live streaming to increase participation opportunities and to extend the time frame for viewing the dialogue. The technique worked well in attracting a large audience both during the event and in subsequent views of the dialogues, although the videos do not stimulate much online discussion they do attract a lot of views. The participants in the online event were much more engaged in discussion. These method was well suited to showcasing innovation and providing possible links between innovators and investors.This type of event is useful in bringing the dialogues to the attention of a wider audience and for sharing an excitement in innovation and entrepreneurship. Very effective in attracting student, academic and private sector interest and enabling international participation.

NoPresenters used pre-recorded videos to increase visual impact and showcase field operations. There were opportunities for some questions and answers although with the interest generated it was necessary to link the audience to presenters for subsequent discussion in order to cope with the interest. The curator provided video web links and email addresses for enquiries.

234239240241248251The focus of this event was on innovation in food systems, mostly in relation to agriculture but also featuring food processing and retailing. BHEARD and the USAID Mission in Cambodia have supported the improvement of key aspects of the agricultural research system in Cambodia by investing in developing capacities in the Royal University of Agriculture, the Center of Excellence on Sustainable Agricultural Intensification and Nutrition and other institutions. Stakeholder engagement with key actors in Cambodia’s agricultural system, identified that investment in technology transfer would be an important way to remove barriers to innovation and progress in Cambodian agriculture. The BHEARD funds for Cambodia were used for a competitive seed grant program to support innovative research. This small project has demonstrated the interest in innovation and the potential for turning innovations into commercializable products for continuous improvement in the agricultural sector. Four prize winning examples were presented that demonstrate what relatively small investments, creative interest, entrepreneurial and technical skills can achieves in a short time. The examples show how much can be achieved and how necessary the investments in the institutions and ideas are for the future of the food system. The examples provided were: ◾ Safe plant spraying product to tackle pests, diseases, and nutrition Contact details: Tho Kim Eang: thokimeang@rua.edu.kh - Tel: +855 85 999 457 ◾ LM-Drone: Large Scale Crop Health Monitoring by Unnamed Aerial Vehicle (Drone). Contact details: Sanara Hor : hsanara@rua.edu.kh - Tel: +855 12 722 616 ◾ PhallChangrit (PCr.) innovates the cricket value chain, from the production of low-cost cricket-feed to the production of highly nutritive cricket-based products: Contact details: Phalla Miech phallchangrit@gmail.com Tel: +855 77 743 739 ◾ Veggi-Transplanter: Manufacturing of easy-to-use equipment/ products that help farmers to optimize vegetable farming.235240241244248251Student and youth enthusiasm for the event was evident and this is a sign that support for innovative ideas are a key aspect for the sustainability of agriculture and the appeal to youth of employment in agriculture and food system. The support from both international and national institions proved effective in stimulating innovation and entrepreneurship. Investor interest for commercial products was immediate with private sector representatives seeking contact with the innovators for follow-up discussions. This event amply demonstrates both the interest and the capabilities of student and academic teams in pursuing innovation and also demonstrates the value of a youthful organization like Impact Hub in sustaining the effort. Given the many challenges confronting agriculture and the technology lag evident in Cambodia, it is evident that there is insufficient national investment (public and private) in incubators for innovation, in funding academic research and challenging researchers to move into commercializable research areas. Mentoring of academics and students is a critical aspect for generating commercial solutions. The experience that academics and students have gained from placements in other countries is another factor in fostering innovation, giving the researchers opportunities to see outside the box in terms of the potential for improvement of agricultural production and agribusiness. The event demonstrates the interest and the relevance of agribusiness oriented studies featuring technological innovation and relevance of academic institutions in contributing to innovation and development and benefits to students of being exposed to these possibilities. It also amply demonstrated the value added of the organizations like Impact Hub, both for commercial possibilities and appeal to youth.236239240241248251GENERAL DISCUSSION Discussion of the different innovations included the benefits of naturally derived solutions for pest control, disease resistance and fertility; the nutritional benefits of insects as human food; cost savings for insect raising; consumer interest in insect sourced food products; food processing options; use of agricultural by-products; marketing strategies: Eat Crickets, Be Healthy, Support Farmers; drones for crop health mapping, aerial survey and as a tool for consultant services; targeting for supply of different services to different markets; cost savings and productivity increases through mechanization at appropriate scale. The appetite and interest in youth in innovation and technology was clear. The support from academia and the private sector was also clear. more work is required, connecting the national research bodies to academia and the private sector, fostering and incentivizing innovation and taking novel solutions through to realization in the marketplace.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/John-Medendorp-Opening-Words.pdfhttp://www.cesain.org/enhttps://phnompenh.impacthub.net/https://www.canr.msu.edu/bheard/https://youtu.be/VObErMgvxBEhttps://youtu.be/uAhyDZIeUhQhttps://youtu.be/p5meITaK9DIhttps://youtu.be/SSGCOshECLw

2021-05-29 14:07:50205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/17230/135

40221152261416337217110213924

The four pillars of engagement was strictly adhered to i.e. People, Practice, Policy and Performance. The Facilitators having an in-depth knowledge of the importance of the dialogue, selected participants from all works of life within and outside the community ensuring gender equality from relevant stakeholders, creating enabling environment for a conducive, free and fair hearing of all members. The topics discussed were designed specifically to capture the major purpose of the United Nations• The dialogue reflected the principles of a peaceful environment having institutions that maintain peace like traditional rulers, police men, and Local vigilantes as planned for the dialogue to be free and fair and for all participants. LIFE – ND project is already intervening in the community and they are already feeling the impact of government. • The dialogue facilitators ensured that the range of participants was as broad and inclusive and covered the recommended stakeholders for the dialogue. • The stakeholders were pre-notified through a letter of invitation on the topics to be discussed and their roles. During the dialogue the local language (Igbo) and English was used for effective communication. • Provision was made for a conducive and well ventilated hall. There was adequate arrangement for communication. Gadgets. • A communique was presented at the end of the dialogue to communicate outcomes and recommendations. The invited stakeholders were happy to be part of the dialogue, having given them the opportunity to be part of the local decision making.• The Conveners should engage more representative stakeholders and also look at the time factor of the dialogue.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The major focus of the Rural Stakeholders Food Systems Dialogue was to engage more grassroots stakeholders in taking an aggressive approach to solving global hunger. In Abia State the dialogue was guided by the five (5) action tracks and levers of the UN Food Systems Summit. Stakeholders during the dialogue explored different aspects of the food system to identify pathways that will improve nutrition security, reduce hunger and the prevalence of malnutrition in line with the national food and nutrition policy for Nigeria. Concrete actions for fighting hunger, malnutrition and strategies to reduce poverty and enhance the resilience, sustainability of food production and security were discussed. Participants were divided into five (5) groups to facilitate the discussions. Group 1 focused on suggesting ways to end hunger and all forms of malnutrition to reduce incidence of non-communicable disease, enabling every individual to stay healthy and suggesting how everyone will always have access to enough affordable nutritious and safe food products. Group 2 focused on ways to build consumers demand for sustainably produced food, strengthening the local value chains, improve nutrition, and promote re-use and recycling of food resources especially among the most vulnerable. It also recognised elimination of wasteful patterns of food consumption and transition in diets towards more nutritious foods that require fewer resources to produce and transport. Group 3 focused on how to optimize environmental resource use in food production, processing and distribution thereby reducing biodiversity loss, pollution, water use, soil degradation and greenhouse gas emissions. It also centred on food system governance that realigns incentives to reduce food losses and other negative environmental impacts Group 4 focused their discussion on elimination of poverty by promoting full and productive employment and decent work for all actors along the food value chain, reducing risks for the world’s poorest, enabling entrepreneurship and addressing the inequitable access to resources and distribution of value. It was also centred on improved resilience through social protection and seek to ensure that food systems “leave no one behind”, it also highlighted potential game-changing and systematic solutions to ensure that food system from land to waste are regenerative and circular where possible thus more resilient to future shocks in Nigeria. Group 5 focused on actions that will work to ensure the continued functionality of sustainable food systems in areas that are prone to conflicts or natural disasters. The ambition under the action was to ensure that everyone within a food system are empowered to prepare for, withstand and recover from instability.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Participants at the end of the discussions affirmed that there cannot be Sustainable Development without bold actions to achieve food and nutrition security, agricultural policies that will lift small and large scale farmers and vulnerable communities out of poverty. The following were the top findings and recommendations made by the participants at the end of the dialogue: Findings • Inadequate agricultural education on farming systems to farmers. • Nonchalant attitudes of young people towards farming. • Negligence and ignorance of citizens in taking balance diet. • Limited storage facilities. • Increase intake of processed food in our communities. • Agricultural lands are being used for housing development. • Inadequate financial support from the government to farmers. • Poor access roads to farms. • Inadequate basic infrastructures. • Lack of basic nutritional knowledge. • Little or no government intervention through policies/strategies and vision to help improve nutrition security. Conclusions/Recommendations Recommendations made by the participants at the end of the dialogue include: • Government should come up with policies that will make agriculture attractive to young people: Farming offers the young generations a chance to make a difference by growing enough food to feed the world. Those who become farmers now have the opportunity to be the generation that will end hunger and alleviate malnutrition. • Conservation farm practices for sustainable Farming: Based on principles of soil and nature protection, conserving farm practices serves as the base for sustainable farming. It manages to increase both the crop yield and soil properties as well improve nature biodiversity. • Government policies should make food more available, accessible and affordable by increasing agricultural production. This will improve the economic and health status of the community. • Farmers must be supported by the government financially to realize their full potential by enabling them to increase their agricultural productivity, promoting their access to markets and services. • Research institutes should develop ways of enlightening the citizens on improved varieties of staple crops. • Nutrition officers should continuously enlighten the citizens on healthy eating habits. • Provision of markets, good access roads and basic storage facilities. • Farmers should be discouraged from bush burning. • Farmers should use more of organic fertilizers and natural pest control methods and reduce the use of inorganic fertilizers and pesticides. • Deforestation should be discouraged and afforestation encouraged. • The government should engage the services of indigenous people to secure the rural communities and farm lands.236238243244245246247248249250251Participants at the end of the discussions affirmed that there cannot be Sustainable Development without bold actions to achieve food and nutrition security, agricultural policies that will lift small and large scale farmers and vulnerable communities out of poverty. The following were the top findings and recommendations made by the participants at the end of the dialogue: Findings • Inadequate agricultural education on farming systems to farmers. • Nonchalant attitudes of young people towards farming. • Negligence and ignorance of citizens in taking balance diet. • Limited storage facilities. • Increase intake of processed food in our communities. • Agricultural lands are being used for housing development. • Inadequate financial support from the government to farmers. • Poor access roads to farms. • Inadequate basic infrastructures. • Lack of basic nutritional knowledge. • Little or no government intervention through policies/strategies and vision to help improve nutrition security. Conclusions/Recommendations Recommendations made by the participants at the end of the dialogue include: • Government should come up with policies that will make agriculture attractive to young people: Farming offers the young generations a chance to make a difference by growing enough food to feed the world. Those who become farmers now have the opportunity to be the generation that will end hunger and alleviate malnutrition. • Conservation farm practices for sustainable Farming: Based on principles of soil and nature protection, conserving farm practices serves as the base for sustainable farming. It manages to increase both the crop yield and soil properties as well improve nature biodiversity. • Government policies should make food more available, accessible and affordable by increasing agricultural production. This will improve the economic and health status of the community. • Farmers must be supported by the government financially to realize their full potential by enabling them to increase their agricultural productivity, promoting their access to markets and services. • Research institutes should develop ways of enlightening the citizens on improved varieties of staple crops. • Nutrition officers should continuously enlighten the citizens on healthy eating habits. • Provision of markets, good access roads and basic storage facilities. • Farmers should be discouraged from bush burning. • Farmers should use more of organic fertilizers and natural pest control methods and reduce the use of inorganic fertilizers and pesticides. • Deforestation should be discouraged and afforestation encouraged. • The government should engage the services of indigenous people to secure the rural communities and farm lands.236239243244245246247248249250251Group 2: Shift to Healthy and Sustainable Consumption Patterns Actions urgently needed • Awareness creation on radio, television and churches on healthy consumption pattern. • Educating the rural dwellers on what a balance diet is and the importance of eating a balance diet. • Integrating food policy and regulatory reforms to improve food environment. • Using schools as a key environment for delivering healthy, safe and sustainable diet and fostering lifelong healthy and sustainable consumption.236240243244245246247248249250251Group 3: Global Food System at Crossroads: Policy Landscape and Governance Factor for Boosting Nature Positive Production at Scale in Nigeria: The Right to Food Approach. Actions urgently needed • Government should make bush burning an offence. • Protection of land from erosion by planting new trees, applying of organic manure instead of chemical fertilizers. • Government should provide adequate storage facilities for food crops. • Government should provide funds/ grants and improved farm inputs.236241243244245246247248249250251Group 1: Poor people are able to eat nutritious foods that will not make them sick Actions urgently needed Strand 1: Reducing hunger and inequality • Everyone should be encouraged to engage in one form of agricultural production e.g. backyard gardens, community gardens, and integrated homestead food production in order to make food more diverse and readily available. • Food systems in the rural communities should be nutrition sensitive by incorporating nutrition objectives like planting pro-nutrition crops and tubers/roots, oil palm processors should be discouraged from adding chemical dye to the finished product e.t.c. • Governments should make policies that boost agricultural production thereby providing an environment of improved food availability and opportunities for households to lift themselves out of poverty, hunger and malnutrition. • Government should encourage fresh graduates to go into agriculture by providing grants and interest free loans. • Female farmers should be given equal opportunity to resources e.g. access to farmlands. • Government and research institutes should come together to improve the nutrient value of stable crops through bio fortification and make such crops available to rural farmers. Group 2: Shift to Healthy and Sustainable Consumption Patterns Actions urgently needed • Awareness creation on radio, television and churches on healthy consumption pattern. • Educating the rural dwellers on what a balance diet is and the importance of eating a balance diet. • Integrating food policy and regulatory reforms to improve food environment. • Using schools as a key environment for delivering healthy, safe and sustainable diet and fostering lifelong healthy and sustainable consumption. Group 3: Global Food System at Crossroads: Policy Landscape and Governance Factor for Boosting Nature Positive Production at Scale in Nigeria: The Right to Food Approach. Actions urgently needed • Government should make bush burning an offence. • Protection of land from erosion by planting new trees, applying of organic manure instead of chemical fertilizers. • Government should provide adequate storage facilities for food crops. • Government should provide funds/ grants and improved farm inputs. Group 4: Advancing Equitable Livelihoods in Nigeria Actions urgently needed • Women farmers should be given equal access to resources like land, this will improve food production. • Female health and nutrition should be made a priority, this can prevent health complications for them and the children they bare. • Government policies should ensure that everyone has equal right to adequate food and social protection. • Stakeholders should be provided with equal accessibility to land, natural endowment and economic opportunities. • Youths and women should be duly represented in leadership positions in rural areas. Group 5: Building the Resilience of Food Systems in Nigeria to withstand Vulnerabilities, Shocks and Stresses Actions urgently needed for Improved Food availability for resilience • Good agricultural policy by Government • Provision of agricultural loans to indigenous farmers. • Availability of farm land, manpower, seedlings e.tc • Educating farmers on farming systems and providing extension services. • Encouraging youths to go into agriculture. • Use of organic fertilizers should be encouraged. • Building of food processing plants to reduce food wastage. • Addressing the issue of climate change • Provision of market to farmers • Provision of adequate processing equipment to farmers • Reduction of Post-harvest food losses • Ensuring the accessibility of farmers to irrigation system236242243244245246247248249250251Group 1: Poor people are able to eat nutritious foods that will not make them sick Actions urgently needed Strand 1: Reducing hunger and inequality • Everyone should be encouraged to engage in one form of agricultural production e.g. backyard gardens, community gardens, and integrated homestead food production in order to make food more diverse and readily available. • Food systems in the rural communities should be nutrition sensitive by incorporating nutrition objectives like planting pro-nutrition crops and tubers/roots, oil palm processors should be discouraged from adding chemical dye to the finished product e.t.c. • Governments should make policies that boost agricultural production thereby providing an environment of improved food availability and opportunities for households to lift themselves out of poverty, hunger and malnutrition. • Government should encourage fresh graduates to go into agriculture by providing grants and interest free loans. • Female farmers should be given equal opportunity to resources e.g. access to farmlands. • Government and research institutes should come together to improve the nutrient value of stable crops through bio fortification and make such crops available to rural farmers. Group 2: Shift to Healthy and Sustainable Consumption Patterns Actions urgently needed • Awareness creation on radio, television and churches on healthy consumption pattern. • Educating the rural dwellers on what a balance diet is and the importance of eating a balance diet. • Integrating food policy and regulatory reforms to improve food environment. • Using schools as a key environment for delivering healthy, safe and sustainable diet and fostering lifelong healthy and sustainable consumption. Group 3: Global Food System at Crossroads: Policy Landscape and Governance Factor for Boosting Nature Positive Production at Scale in Nigeria: The Right to Food Approach. Actions urgently needed • Government should make bush burning an offence. • Protection of land from erosion by planting new trees, applying of organic manure instead of chemical fertilizers. • Government should provide adequate storage facilities for food crops. • Government should provide funds/ grants and improved farm inputs. Group 4: Advancing Equitable Livelihoods in Nigeria Actions urgently needed • Women farmers should be given equal access to resources like land, this will improve food production. • Female health and nutrition should be made a priority, this can prevent health complications for them and the children they bare. • Government policies should ensure that everyone has equal right to adequate food and social protection. • Stakeholders should be provided with equal accessibility to land, natural endowment and economic opportunities. • Youths and women should be duly represented in leadership positions in rural areas. Group 5: Building the Resilience of Food Systems in Nigeria to withstand Vulnerabilities, Shocks and Stresses Actions urgently needed for Improved Food availability for resilience • Good agricultural policy by Government • Provision of agricultural loans to indigenous farmers. • Availability of farm land, manpower, seedlings e.tc • Educating farmers on farming systems and providing extension services. • Encouraging youths to go into agriculture. • Use of organic fertilizers should be encouraged. • Building of food processing plants to reduce food wastage. • Addressing the issue of climate change • Provision of market to farmers • Provision of adequate processing equipment to farmers • Reduction of Post-harvest food losses • Ensuring the accessibility of farmers to irrigation system2372382392402412422432442452462472482492502511. At the core of a lot of divergences is that some stakeholders prefer processes that rely on individual/household level change (demand side actions), while others prefer processes that rely on institutional change (supply-side actions). Community Gardens: Some stakeholders welcomed the idea of having community gardens while others opposed it. Reasons for the opposition: Conflict resolution issues that may arise from sharing formula. 2. Reduction of fiscal space: Some of the stakeholders were of the view that the government is doing enough in terms of interventions in the rural communities while others are of the opinion that the government is not doing enough. Even where there are cases of government interventions they are seen as being hijacked by portfolio farmers and effects does not trickle down to rural farmers. 3. Lobbying and interference by special interests: Some stakeholders welcomed the idea of lobbying as it helps attract interventions in their communities while those that opposed gave reasons of such interventions being hijacked. 4. Social norms are difficult to change Some stakeholders were of the opinion that you cannot have good nutrition if you are not wealthy. Opposing view: Those in opposition tried to prove that you can be wealthy and not eat right (hidden hunger). 5. The assumption that youths would want to work in agriculture or agro-processing / food manufacturing. There were divergent views on the youth’s participation in agriculture. While some stakeholders are of the opinion that if government can intervene more in agricultural development projects targeting youths, more of them will be willing to go into agriculture. Others were of the opinion that with or without government intervention, the youths are not willing due to their “get rich quick syndrome”. 6. Need to ensure that innovation and technology transfer is fair: There were no divergent views on the above area. Areas of divergence: 1. At the core of a lot of divergences is that some stakeholders prefer processes that rely on individual/household level change (demand side actions), while others prefer processes that rely on institutional change (supply-side actions). Community Gardens: Some stakeholders welcomed the idea of having community gardens while others opposed it. Reasons for the opposition: Conflict resolution issues that may arise from sharing formula. 2. Reduction of fiscal space: Some of the stakeholders were of the view that the government is doing enough in terms of interventions in the rural communities while others are of the opinion that the government is not doing enough. Even where there are cases of government interventions they are seen as being hijacked by portfolio farmers and effects does not trickle down to rural farmers. 3. Lobbying and interference by special interests: Some stakeholders welcomed the idea of lobbying as it helps attract interventions in their communities while those that opposed gave reasons of such interventions being hijacked. 4. Social norms are difficult to change Some stakeholders were of the opinion that you cannot have good nutrition if you are not wealthy. Opposing view: Those in opposition tried to prove that you can be wealthy and not eat right (hidden hunger). 5. The assumption that youths would want to work in agriculture or agro-processing / food manufacturing. There were divergent views on the youth’s participation in agriculture. While some stakeholders are of the opinion that if government can intervene more in agricultural development projects targeting youths, more of them will be willing to go into agriculture. Others were of the opinion that with or without government intervention, the youths are not willing due to their “get rich quick syndrome”. 6. Need to ensure that innovation and technology transfer is fair: There were no divergent views on the above area. 7. Stakeholders working in silos There were no divergent views on the above area. 8. Preponderant national emphasis on under nutrition There were divergent views on national emphasis on under nutrition. Some stakeholders were of the opinion that government is doing a lot sensitization especially on breastfeeding, others were of the opinion that the government still has a lot to do on addressing issues bothering on under nutrition e.g Poverty. 9. Trust deficits: There were divergent views on trust deficits. Some stakeholders were of the opinion that government has done enough in supporting agriculture while others claimed that such interventions were being hijacked. • Provision of interest rate at a concessional rate • Provision of subsidy to farmers on agricultural inputs • Provision of processing equipment to farmers at subsidized rate

2021-05-29 16:12:50205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/17247/135

402171652515153323317111337

The participants involved diverse stakeholders in the rural food systems of the community. Every participant was given opportunity to speak during the dialogue. The urgency of continuous, deliberate and useful actions to be taken to eliminate hunger and achieve consumption of nutritious globally food was made known to all stakeholders during mobilization and the discussion. Confidence building was secured through detailed explanation of the aim of the dialogue taking cognisance of the complexity of the food systems environment as well as sensitivity of the multi-stakeholder composition of the participants. All participants were addressed respectfully and informed of the global implication of the planned United Nations (UN) Food Summit. All track actions were treated equally during the dialogue.Opportunities for Engagement. The peace in the community, the identified food inflation reported in the community, the primary occupation of farming and fishing in the community and the intervention and operations of LIFE-ND in the area provided an opportunity for engagement of the people in the area. Inclusive and Adequate Representation. Both male and female members of the community were selected as participants. Not more than two each of all categories of actors in a rural food system listed in the implementation manual were strictly followed. Provide effective communication and information. Both Local language spoken in the community, and pidgin English were used during mobilization and conduct of the dialogue, Town crier, visit to places of worship and, interaction with all sections of the population during the mobilization and use of interpreters during the dialogue were adopted. Immediate feedbacks were received and used to guide the progress of dialogue. Provide Effective Facilities. The Community town Hall located in the centre of the village with a capacity for 1,500 persons was used as the venue of the dialogue. Public address system, adequate lighting, and functional fans were in hall. The large hall space provided adequate space for five groups to carry out the discussion during the group session without interference between the groups. Communication Outcomes. There was a consensus that the rural food system required multi-stakeholder actions on the five tracks to achieve the SDGs related to Food security and shift to consumption healthy foods in a sustainable manner all over the world. The participants agreed that they a role to play as actors in the food system in bringing about the desired goals beyond participation in the dialogue. Measurement of Satisfaction. Participants requested time frame to know when a review and reconvening of the next dialogue in order to evaluate the progress of the suggested changes based on the indicators which they contributed to develop for measurement of the five track actions that needed urgent action.Yes. Food systems are dynamic; therefore, urgency is of essence to obtain the desired effect of dialogue outcomes. Participants’ contribution that reflects what they practice and do as different actors in each food system will engender trust in the vision and objectives and outcomes of food system summit. Conduct of rural stakeholders’ food systems should take into cognisance the time requirements for in-depth engagement of all stakeholders. Gender disaggregation, similarity in roles of stakeholders in the food systems should be considered in the engagement of participants in discussing various aspects of a given dialogue focus or themes. Except for the pandemic, more participants should be engaged in each category to generate more ideas and gather more data. All aspects. Application of the Principles of engagement will reveal the divers’ roles (specific actions by different actors that must be taken) and identify important cross-cutting themes in the naturally complex food system. The impact on the entire ecology of food system and the interconnection between every component will help to define how holistic changes must be implemented to achieve desired goals of a given Summit. Mobilization and sensitization of community members for a rural food system dialogue should apply the principles of engagement for effective and positive results.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The focus of the Rural Community Stakeholders Food Systems Dialogue was to explore through dialogue a rural community food system in the South-South Region of Nigeria guided by the five (5) action tracks and levers of the UN Food Systems Summit. Participants were engaged in discussion of the composition, working, previous and status of the food systems in the area. Detailed discussion examined food systems dynamics, major actors, environmental and gender issues, cultural practices as each affected food systems. Opportunities for improved condition as well as actions to be taken by different stakeholders to achieve food security, nutritious food, and healthy consumption pattern on a sustainable basis in the rural area were deeply discussed by participants. Immediate feedback revealed that lack of arable land, manual method of farming, low participation of community members in farming, poor knowledge of soil information, poor knowledge of modern methods of crop production and animal husbandry, lack of storage facilities, flooding, and lack of government assistance to farmers were major hindrances to reduction of hunger and inequality making it difficult for availability and affordability of nutritious foods. Poor food hygiene, lack of knowledge of consumer rights and enforcement of rules by Food Inspectors and Veterinary Doctors in the rural arears increased unsafe food practices. Limited livelihood activities, poor/low income, post-harvest loses, theft of agricultural produce were factors that reduced the resilience in event of shock, potential vulnerability, and external stress on the food systems of the rural people. Cross-cutting issues discussed showed that food inflation could reduce action against hunger and malnutrition. Similarly, climate change resulting in flooding threatened availability and reduced production was further challenged by poor soil fertility, limited participation in farming as well as gender and cultural constraints in the community. Achieving healthy and sustainable food consumption pattern was also linked to be affected by the above-mentioned factors. The right to foods in Nigeria will likely be challenged by low farm productivity which result in food insecurity and low nutrition food consumption. In Nigeria, weak enforcement of laws will also be likely to affect right to food policy. Formation of farmer’s organisations and involvement of mass participation in agriculture will enhance equitable livelihoods in Nigeria in the views of the participants. The adoption of innovation in agriculture in all crop and livestock enterprises, building of private storage facilities and establishment of private sector food bank will help the rural food systems withstand vulnerability, shock, and stress in rural food systems in Nigeria.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251• Government and intervention agencies to assist in acquisition of and access to non-arable lands to households interested in farming according to their needs. • All households in the rural communities, including public servants and private sector wage earners to engage in farming and other food systems components for which they have comparative advantage to undertake. • Strengthening of Public Agriculture Extension services to provide technical advice to promote good agricultural practices in the communities to improve availability of food and introduction of new crops and livestock in the area. This will increase crop and livestock diversity and improve availability and affordability of nutritious foods in the community. • Effective information sharing and dissemination on existing markets for farm inputs as well as related agricultural products and services will ensure all year farm production and reduce hunger and improve affordability of nutritious foods. • Government to facilitate the establishment of private-public managed food banks/storage facilities to store harvested surplus Agricultural produce harvested in the community. This will reduce post-harvest loses as surplus during harvest and ensure continuous availability and affordability during lean period. This will reduce food inflation in the rural areas as currently experienced in the community. • More punitive measures against thefts of agricultural produce and enforcement of existing laws and procedures regulating the food systems within the community to safeguard investments to improve availability of food and increase affordability of safe food in the community. • To ensure increased affordability and availability of nutritious and safe foods, farmers and other stakeholders involved in rural food systems should avoid sharp practices, use of harmful chemicals, and adopt good agricultural practices in crop cultivation, livestock farming, processing and marketing of agricultural produce and services. • That proper storage of crops in farms and foods at homes would assist in ensuring better quality and nutritious foods and household food availability and reduction of food inflation in the Community. • To ensure the availability and affordability of nutritious foods, all farmers in the community should engage in mixed crop farming and diversity of livestock rearing. • To ensure safe foods, regulatory agencies in-charge of consumer rights and food safety should be strengthened to deliver on their respective mandates. • Individuals at all levels of the Community should ensure proper hygiene in handling processed, unprocessed and leftover foods, as well as the practice of eating sick or dead animals should be discouraged to ensure safe foods. • That to promote food hygiene, Water Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) services should be available at household level and open defecation discouraged in order to reduce food contamination. • Nutrition education highlighting the dangers of unhealthy food choices targeted at communities and schools in order to empower community members and school children to demand for healthy foods. • In view of the frequent flooding experienced by the Community, Climate Smart agriculture technologies promotion, shoreline protection as well as dredging of the rivers would assist in mitigating the effect of climate change on food production. • There should be provisions for good storage facilities and use of appropriate technology for food preservation to address wastage and post-harvest loses; and • That the Leadership of the Community should facilitate and encourage farmers to organise themselves into cooperatives to benefit from such rural institution structure.236238243244245246247248249250251Group 1: Poor people are able to eat nutritious foods that will not make them sick Actions urgently needed Strand 1: Reducing hunger and inequality a) Transform all non-arable to cultivable lands accessible by households interested in farming of diverse crops and rearing of livestock including introduction of new crop species and animal breeds. b) Promoting/provision of agricultural machines and equipment for hiring by all members of the community. c) Massive education of farmers on good agricultural practices that incorporates diverse crops and livestock species that will lead to supply of all essential nutrients needed for good health. This should be done through public agricultural extension services to reach every household. Strand 2: Increasing availability and affordability of nutritious foods. a) Mass production, processing and storage of foods involving all members of the community. b) Cultivation of diverse species of crops and livestock by farmers in the community. This includes the introduction of new crops species and livestock into the farming system. c) Resuscitation of crops and livestock previously farmed in the community. Example, beans, rice, and cocoa-yam. Cocoyam species that can resist blights (disease) should be re-introduced in the farming community. d) Massive production of short-cycle crops (3 – 4 months) lifespan (vegetables, maize, rice, okro and groundnut) while waiting for crops/livestock that take a long time to mature (e.g. cassava). Strand 3: Ensuring safe food. a) Enforcement of existing laws regulating food vendors and banning of fishing using chemical substances. b) Discouragement of consumption of dead floating fishes in the water by community members as has been in practice. c) Promoting the extensive use of organic manure in crop cultivation by all members of the community. d) Proper examination of foods’ wholesomeness before purchase in the market and thorough washing of raw foods before cooking. e) Getting assistance from extension agents in order to adopt current innovations in ensuring cultivation, processing and consumption of food that is safe. Cross-Cutting a) Increase food prices hindering hunger reduction, inequality, and affordability of nutritious foods. b) Flooding because of climate change reduces food security by aggravation losses due to farmland destruction, spoilage, and displacement of farm households from their homes. c) Increase population reducing available land for agriculture and increasing food inflation. d) Traditional practices and norms hindering female participation in certain aspects of the food systems. Significant and continued contribution of the female folks to availability of food and affordability of nutritious food due to age-long customs threatens attainment of elimination of hunger and other related SDG goal. Who should take the actions? a) Government, Community leaders, traditional leaders all actors in the food systems. b) Government, intervention agencies, community members. c) Traditional institutions, and Pro-food/rural development related Non-Governmental Organisations. Ways in which progress could be assessed a) Difference in the number of households in the Community engaged in farming before and after actions were taken. b) Agricultural yield differences before and after actions were taken. c) Number of farming households in the community cultivating other nutritious crops aside their usual staple crops. d) Number of farming households in the community rearing different livestock apart from the native species. e) Number of farming households in the community with good knowledge, positive attitude, and practices on good nutrition.236239243244245246247248249250251Group 2: Shift to Healthy and Sustainable Consumption Patterns Actions urgently needed a) Mass production of safe food crops and micro livestock. b) Farming households to increase storage capacities of crop produced using appropriate technology/traditional methods. c) Mass cultivation of diverse nutritious crops aside from the usual staple crops in the community. d) Number extension activities promoting consumption of healthy foods and sustainable agricultural practices. (Number of Famer-Field Days, number of demonstration plots established per planting season in the community). Who should take the actions? a) Farming households in the Community b) Public extension agencies c) Rural institutions in the community including farmers’ organisation, youth and women groups and faith-based organisations. d) Intervention agencies interested in rural agricultural development. Ways in which progress could be assessed. a) Number of additional households engaged in agriculture in the community after actions have been taken. b) Number of extension workers working in the community (establish ratio of farm families to Village-based extension agent). c) Frequency of extension contacts with households engaged in farming in the community. d) Difference in individual households agro-produced storage capacity engaged in farming before and after actions were taken. e) Percentage of agro-produce stored in the household with respect to total production volume. (Higher percentage indicates progress).236240243244245246247248249250251Group 3: Global Food System at Crossroads: Policy Landscape and Governance Factor for Boosting Nature Positive Production at Scale in Nigeria: The Right to Food Approach Actions urgently needed a) Mass mobilisation of households to engage in farming activities. b) Use of mix traditional and modern technology and innovation in seed preservation. c) Formation and strengthening of farmers’ organisations in Community. d) Review of existing food related policy to suit present needs and realities. e) Massive awareness on the Right to Food as a fundamental human right to be adopted and agreed to by all states in Nigeria. f) Enactment and enforcement of the Right to food policy and strengthening of institution for implementation. Issues raised during discussion a) Aging of existing farmers reducing available farm labour. b) Lack of interest of young people embracing farming as livelihood activity. c) Inadequate adoption of innovation versus low returns on investment from Agriculture. d) Lack of organisation of farmers into groups e) Weak leadership of community-based organisations which could hinder mass mobilization in favour of mass engagement of persons into food system. f) Lack of awareness of farmers on their rights to food g) Non-existence of enforceable rules, traditional norms against non-farming individuals in the community Who should take the actions? a) Community leaders b) Government c) Community based organisations d) Mass Media as aspect of social responsibility. Ways in which progress could be assessed. a) Quantity of crops harvested, and volume of livestock produced before and after actions were taken. b) Price difference of food items including meats and fish before and after actions were taken. c) Number of newly formed farmers group after action was taken. d) Number of youths in the community engaged in agriculture in the previous two farming seasons. e) Number of states adopting farmer friendly policy which improves ease-of-doing agricultural business. f) Extent of availability of inputs and input price difference before and after actions were taken.236241243244245246247248249250251Group 4: Advancing Equitable Livelihoods in Nigeria Actions urgently needed a) Mass mobilization of households into various components of the farming systems including production, processing, marketing transportation in various agricultural value chain. b) Equitable and socially inclusive interventions in livelihood opportunities across different parts of Nigeria c) Provision of equal opportunities for livelihood for both urban and rural areas in Nigeria. d) Joint monitoring involving rural communities’ representatives and public reporting of how interventions are applied to reduce nepotism at the local level and tribalism at the National level. e) Increasing the range of agro-commodities value chains that are developed to offer more opportunities to more people in different communities. Who should take the actions? a) Community leaders b) Government c) Community based organisations d) Mass media (including local/traditional media). Ways in which progress could be assessed a) Number of livelihood opportunities available/created in rural and urban areas in Nigeria. b) Number of male and female beneficiaries of livelihood opportunities in rural and urban areas of Nigeria especially oriented towards agriculture. c) Number of new entrants into the farming systems including production, processing, marketing transportation in various agricultural value chain d) Number of new opportunities provided in value chains of neglected crops and livestock.236242243244245246247248249250251Group 5: Building the Resilience of Food Systems in Nigeria to withstand Vulnerabilities, Shocks and Stresses Actions urgently needed for Improved Food availability for resilience a) Adoption of farming methods that can withstand adverse weather conditions e.g, cultivation of early maturing crops before flooding and drought resistant varieties of maize and massive cultivation of swamp rice in the flood prone area. b) Re-introduction of beans, rice, blight-resistant cocoa-yam variety into the farming system of the community. c) Adoption of mixed farming by all farming households in the community. d) Adoption of mix traditional and modern technology and innovation in seed preservation e) Promotion of improved knowledge of connection of environment and food systems among farmers in the community f) Improved local governance. g) Adoption of appropriate technology where light machines for planting, processing with some human effort is used to increase area of cultivation and processed produced. Who should take the actions? a) Farming households in the Community b) Public extension agencies c) Private extension service/inputs providers. d) Rural institutions in the community including farmers’ organisation, youth and women groups and faith-based organisations. e) Intervention agencies interested in rural agricultural development Ways in which progress could be assessed a) Level of awareness of farming households on the connection between food systems and the environment b) Extent of participation of male and female farmers in local governance relevant to food system. c) Number of households adopting farming methods that can withstand adverse weather conditions. d) Extent of crop diversity cultivation among farming households in the community e) Number of households that have re-introduced neglected crops and new livestock species in the community. f) Average number of innovative technologies adopted by individual households and by the communities.237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251At the core of a lot of divergences is that some stakeholders prefer processes that rely on individual/household level change (demand side actions), while others prefer processes that rely on institutional change (supply-side actions). a) Individual level change was more easily implemented than institutional change. b) Individual level change outcomes can diffuse across the community and produce similar effect as institutional change over time. c) Individual level change is more sustainable than institutional change. 2. Reduction of fiscal space: a) Arguments for reduction in fiscal space believe that few elites kept back the common resources for all (fiscal resources) thereby creating the situation of reduction, which is artificial. b) Those in favour of reduced fiscal space argue that the fiscal space was reduced due to reduced national revenue at all levels of government, individual businesses. 3. Lobbying and interference by special interests: a) Some opinion noted that some individuals/groups were strong in lobbying and negotiating skills for their personal/group interest. b) Other opinion believe that some individuals and group were selfish and hardly represented the interest of the group they were supposed to protect and or advance. c) Nepotism hindered lobbying and brought interference in the sharing of common good to community members at the local level. d) Others argued that tribalism hindered and altered equitable sharing of common good at the national level. 4. Social norms are difficult to change a) Sacred days of farming forbidding farming activities have been changed. b) Observance of festivals before harvest of yams have changed. c) Restriction of certain persons from harvesting certain crops (e.g., vegetables) are still in existence. d) Female circumcision which affects health of individuals and reduce farm labour in extreme cases have been stopped in the community. e) Forbidding women from going to farm during menstrual cycle no longer widely practiced in the community. 5. The assumption that youths would want to work in agriculture or agro-processing / food manufacturing a) Most youths (65%) do not want to work in agriculture or agro-processing/food manufacturing b) Few youths actually own farms, work in agriculture or agro-processing/food manufacturing c) Returns on investment from agricultural activities is low and therefore unattractive to the youths. 6. Need to ensure that innovation and technology transfer is fair: a) The female farmers are not given preference in technology transfer and innovation during intervention. b) Social norms and gender roles hinder females from fair uptake of innovation technology in agriculture that may be available. c) Male dominance in technology and innovation reduces female friendly technologies from adoption. At the core of a lot of divergences is that some stakeholders prefer processes that rely on individual/household level change (demand side actions), while others prefer processes that rely on institutional change (supply-side actions). a) Individual level change was more easily implemented than institutional change. b) Individual level change outcomes can diffuse across the community and produce similar effect as institutional change over time. c) Individual level change is more sustainable than institutional change. 2. Reduction of fiscal space: a) Arguments for reduction in fiscal space believe that few elites kept back the common resources for all (fiscal resources) thereby creating the situation of reduction, which is artificial. b) Those in favour of reduced fiscal space argue that the fiscal space was reduced due to reduced national revenue at all levels of government, individual businesses. 3. Lobbying and interference by special interests: a) Some opinion noted that some individuals/groups were strong in lobbying and negotiating skills for their personal/group interest. b) Other opinion believe that some individuals and group were selfish and hardly represented the interest of the group they were supposed to protect and or advance. c) Nepotism hindered lobbying and brought interference in the sharing of common good to community members at the local level. d) Others argued that tribalism hindered and altered equitable sharing of common good at the national level. 4. Social norms are difficult to change a) Sacred days of farming forbidding farming activities have been changed. b) Observance of festivals before harvest of yams have changed. c) Restriction of certain persons from harvesting certain crops (e.g., vegetables) are still in existence. d) Female circumcision which affects health of individuals and reduce farm labour in extreme cases have been stopped in the community. e) Forbidding women from going to farm during menstrual cycle no longer widely practiced in the community. 5. The assumption that youths would want to work in agriculture or agro-processing / food manufacturing a) Most youths (65%) do not want to work in agriculture or agro-processing/food manufacturing b) Few youths actually own farms, work in agriculture or agro-processing/food manufacturing c) Returns on investment from agricultural activities is low and therefore unattractive to the youths. 6. Need to ensure that innovation and technology transfer is fair: a) The female farmers are not given preference in technology transfer and innovation during intervention. b) Social norms and gender roles hinder females from fair uptake of innovation technology in agriculture that may be available.

2021-05-29 16:46:08205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/17223/135

1161579228828622612622786622318322

The principles of engagement for the Rural Community Stakeholders Food System Dialogue was organized with all-inclusiveness of the rural community stakeholders food system with each members of the stakeholders such as the Rural Farmers (Small and Medium), Rural Artisans (Small and Medium), Rural Business Women and Men, LGA Chairman, Secretaries and Members of Parliament at the Local Government level, Women Group, Indigenous People, Rural Youth, Local Government Workers, Health Workers in the LGAs (Hospitals, Health Centres i.e. Public and Private Community Groups, etc.), Traditional Health Attendants, Rural Food Processors, Rural Food Marketers (rough food vendors, caterers, etc. Value Chain Leaders (i.e. Livestock, Crops, Fisheries), Inputs Service Providers, Agricultural Mechanization Service Providers, Traditional Rulers (Kings, Community Leaders, Community Rulers, Emirs, “Baales”, “Mai Angwas”, “Obis”, amongst others). Religious Leaders (Pastors, Mallams, Imams, Traditionalists), Security Agencies, Local NGO/Civil Organization were all invited through letters and sensitized, with awareness creation was carried out in the LGA community in preparation prior to the real date to discussed challenges and the way forward in order to incorporate, reinforce and enhance to initiate progressive actions towards sustainable healthy safety nutritious food system in Nigeria.• Analyze opportunities for engagement. The principles of engagement for the Rural Community Stakeholders Food System Dialogue are each reflected in the rural community stakeholder’s food system dialogues. We recognize the utmost urgency of sustained and meaningful action that will enable Nigeria to developed policies at all levels to reach the respective in the next 3 to 10 years Sustainable Development Goals in line SDG vision 2030. In light of this, the Dialogues are focusses in the elaboration of challenges pathways to food systems transformation contributing to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. • Ensure inclusive and adequate representation: The dialogue support inclusive multi-stakeholder processes and approaches within governments and community’s stakeholder’s in bringing in diverse perspectives (including indigenous knowledge, cultural insights, and science-based evidence) to enable stakeholders to find alignment through understanding and to design policy options that deliver against several public goods and across these various systems. The Dialogues bring to the table a diversity of stakeholders from within government, the business community, civil society and research – working across the food system from production, processing, marketing to consumption. They are inclusive and strive to showcase as many voices as possible, capturing diverse cultural, professional and gender specific perspectives. The no of these voices is captured in the Dialogue feedback. • Provide effective communication and information: in providing effecting communication the dialogue curator and the facilitator make sure that pidgin E English were used alongside with interpretation in the local dialect of all the community stakeholders represented in Kogi State to ensure effective communication. • Provide effective facilities: In providing effective facilities a community hall was hired, together with public address system and a projector for visualization of the generic questions and action tracks questions. • Communicate outcomes:Our advice for other dialogue convenor is to make sure that the principles of engagement are strictly adhered to and well followed as this one was done in order to achieved the aims and objectives of the dialogue that may latter come.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The dialogue focusses on to enhance production , processing, marketing of safe nutritious healthy food for all to enhance food system in Nigeria towards achieving sustainable Development Goal in the next 3 to 10 years with cross cutting issues and pathways that came out such as policy formulation to stoppage of farmers herders crisis by establishment of ranching, non-availability of farmers friendly /affordable credit facilities for instance on a single digit loan which some of the stakeholders especially the farmers are soliciting to enable them have access to loan, innovation technology inputs/mechanization equipment was also an issue indigenous knowledge, and the empowerment of women, young people and marginalized groups for inclusive food for all and enhancement of Nigeria food system. (A) The Dialogue focused on major crops grown in the community in the past and now, which are: Rice, Maize, Yam, Cassava, Beans, Groundnut, melon, Millet, Sesames Seed, Cotton, Cashew, Sugar cane, Sweet potatoes, Castor, Oil Palm, Tomatoes, Vegetables.  The challenges they faced in the production of these crops are; Famers/herders clashes (Insecurity), Lack of Farming Inputs/equipment, Lack of rural road networks, Climate Change, Pest infestation, Lack of Storage facilities  The other food items produced in this community (Livestock, fish and others) were the Goat, Chicken, fish, Turkey, Pig, Cow.  Other agricultural produce they produced in their communities were Garri, fufu, Cassava flour.  The on how the above challenges can be resolved surgested by the participants are to formulation of policy for the establishment of Ranches, Provision of improved security for famers through (Community policing, empowerment of vigilante groups), provision of access to loan, Provision of farm inputs, Farm Mechanization through modern tecgnology for production, Construction of Rural farm roads, Irrigation facilities for dry season farming, Provision of Storage Facilities, Access to improved varieties of crops that is resistance to pest and diseases, establishment of processing centres, Capacity building of downstream stakeholders(farmers), developing technological equipment to reduce post-harvest loss of the crops produced and increasing their shelf-life most especially cassava tubers, Provide access to equipment such as planters, threshers, harvesters and many more others.  On the roles stakeholder need to play to resolve these challenges was that, there should be a synergy between all stakeholders to take up the responsibilities sincerely in respond to ins ascent security crises and food insecurity in Nigeria then there will be food for all.  The role Government can play to achieve enough food sufficiency for the Nigerian people are, the Government should promulgate enabling laws for peaceful co-existence between farmers and herders, subsidize farm inputs, Increase the number of extension workers to give orientation on the adoption of new technology and Government should provide market for the sales of Livestock among others.  The stakeholders that must work together to ensure adequate food sufficiency for Nigerian populace was agree unanimously to be all stakeholders must work together ensure adequate food sufficiency for all.  If hunger is to be reduce the people to act are all the stakeholders inclusive and through Government empowerment of downstream stakeholders (farmers) to increase production, the farmers should form co-operative societies to help for easy access and tracking.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251 The major changes observed in production, processing and marketing of food within the food system in the community before and now are that before there was an excess rainfall but now they are experiencing shortage of rainfall, Increased insecurity, incessant farmer’s herders’ clashes, Poor access to Agro-input before but with interventions now they have access to inputs but challenges lack of enough finance.  In the stakeholders own view of what is their vision for food system in the next three (3) and ten (10) years is that National agriculture and food policies should be promoted to enhance production of affordable nutritious, sustainably produced food while rewarding fairly all farmers and food workers, comprehensive traceability systems and appropriate labelling ensure all consumers have access to clear, reliable information about how and where food is produced, empowering them to make informed choices, National should determine contributions to climate action that are based on nature-positive agriculture practices that are developed and tested by farmers, Fair, safe and sustainable supply chains ensure a responsible use of natural resources and a reduction of food loss and waste, making sustainability the easy choice for consumers. Trade policies (import and export) to facilitate access to affordable, safe and nutritious food for all, while contributing to country economic and commercial objectives, as well as resilient and best livelihoods for down- stream food producers (farmers). (i) How these changes impacted positively or negatively in our food system? NEGATIVE - The community food system experiences low production leads to low yield which in-turn leads to high cost of food even within the community market. POSITIVE: - Increased income for few farmers who have the opportunities to produce more farm products. (ii) What can we do as individual, groups or organizations to correct the mistake? - Idea sharing of knowledge and adoption of best practices in food system (iii) How do you want our food systems to look like by 2030? - Increased food supply and affordable food for all addressing Malnutrition issues, Producers well linked to processors and processors linked to marketers and High quality products produced for end consumers all-inclusive in 2030. (iv) The ways Nigerian food systems be repositioned to: • Reduce rates of malnutrition and improve health and nutrition - Value addition and food fortification. • Contribute to personal health and other unknowns - Production, processing of safe nutritious food in a hygienic environment. • Strengthen resilience and livelihoods especially for vulnerable populations such as the poor rural pastoral and agro-pastoral communities • support them with farm inputs, affordable credits and capacity building in the area of value addition. • Contribute to the well-being of women, youth, children and displaced populations (IDPs and Refugees) - Promulgate policy in support of food availability for the vulnerable population i.e free food for the vulnerable popuplace. • Adapt to climate change considering the contribution of food systems activities to degradation of the planet - Enforcement of law against deforestation, embark on tree planting campaign across the country, planting of economy trees, tree fellers should be incorporated into Government Programmes and encourage dry season farming. • Guarantee the regeneration of our ecosystems and nature and to substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions - Embark on promotion of tree planting campaign to regenerate the existing ecosystem to reduce green house emission. • Shape the livelihoods of those working within the food systems - Encourage capacity building and remuneration that is attractive to spur them to hold on the best practices within the food system. • Maintain functioning food systems in the wake of shocks such as pandemics - To develop practicable policy in support of good storage facilities such as strong food reserved system to take care of shock in the wake of pandemic or in case of any other food shortage crises. (C) Changes must be made so that food systems can meet SDG expectations by 2030 are; Availability of funds to encourage people into farming through credit scheme, Provision of improved seeds and Accessibility to the market by construction of feeder roads. (i) The proposed changes/reforms that must be made to address the major challenges of the current Food Systems are; Availability of funds to encourage people into farming through credit scheme, Provision of improved seeds and Accessibility to the market by construction of feeder roads. (ii) How we can ensure that the proposed changes are equitable and just for all the people (stakeholders) is that all stakeholders must be given equal and fair treatment within the food system guiding principles and provision. The proposed changes be supported through empowering all stakeholders to function properly. (iii) The realistic timelines can we achieve our goal of sustainable, healthy food systems is between 3 – 10 years if all stake holders are linked and function able. (D) On how stakeholders can work well together and differently for collection action: -This could be done through cooperation and synergy linkage of all stake holders functionality and Allowing an all-inclusive Stakeholders periodic meeting between leaders of both parties. (i) Who do you regard a powerful stakeholder to partner with – UN, Government, Donors, Private Sector, Farmer Organizations, Research Institutions, Academia? -All Stakeholders236238243244245246247248249250251Group 1: Poor people are able to eat nutritious foods that will not make them sick Actions urgently needed Strand 1: Reducing hunger and inequality • How do we accelerate hunger reduction in Nigeria? -Through Increase Nutritious Food production in Nigeria. • How do we make nutritious foods more available and affordable in Nigeria? -Encouraging processing and value addition and make credit loan more affordable on a single digit bases and provision of land through developing land for the farmers and affordable/accessible credit scheme. - Provision of fund through organizations/Government that will be channels towards private-sector resources (inform of credit scheme/ percentage of profits for the participating corporations plus a matching mechanism for donors and governments) to investments to end hunger by 2030. - Encourage public-private partnerships that that guide towards incentivize and enable precision agriculture companies to ensure access for low-income, smallholder farmers (men and women), enabling them to improve production quantity and quality and increase incomes. • How do we make food safer from farm to table in Nigeria? -Proper harvesting method, Good transportation means, Good access road, Proper processing method, Proper Storage, Use of right chemicals to preserve, Proper hygiene and Access to good water • What is the potential action that can be taken? The potential action that is needed to be taking are the Provision of good farm Roads, Provision of Clean water, Provision of modern harvesting equipment, Provision of basic farm transportation means such as vehicle, pickup van, Open body tricycle etc., through subsidy to enable the rural farmers to acquire them, building of small scale processing centres for value addition, Provision of proper storage facilities in the rural communities, Capacity building of rural famers is greatly needed to enhance the use of inputs and Provision of proper hygiene VIP toilet. • Who are the main actors that would put this action into place? -All the stakeholders and mostly Government. • Within which category does this intervention most easily fall? Nutrition-sensitive agriculture etc. - All stakeholders with Government in the fore front. • What would change about food in the eye of consumers in terms of availability, affordability, accessibility, convenience, safety, quality, desirability etc.? -Good Storage facilities, Hygienic processing centres, Good preservative measures, Proper packaging. • Is this primarily about reducing hunger, making nutritious foods more available and affordable, or improving safety? -Good Storage facilities, Hygienic processing centres, Good preservative measures and Proper packaging etc. Strand 2: Increasing availability and affordability of nutritious foods Encouraging processing and value addition and make credit loan more affordable on a single digit bases and provision of land through developing land for the farmers and affordable/accessible credit scheme. Strand 3: Ensuring safe food Proper harvesting method, Good transportation means, Good access road, Proper processing method, Proper Storage, Use of right chemicals to preserve, Proper hygiene and Access to good water Cross-Cutting -The potential action that is needed to be taking are the Provision of good farm Roads, Provision of Clean water, Provision of modern harvesting equipment, Provision of basic farm transportation means such as vehicle, pickup van, Open body tricycle etc., through subsidy to enable the rural farmers to acquire them, building of small scale processing centres for value addition, Provision of proper storage facilities in the rural communities, Capacity building of rural famers is greatly needed to enhance the use of inputs and Provision of proper hygiene VIP toilet. - Empower the security outfits such as the local vigilantes, community policing and establishment of forest guards to secure farmers on their farms. -Promulgate enabling laws that allows for ranching against open grazing. Who should take the actions? All the stakeholders and mostly Government.236239243244245246247248249250251Group 2: Shift to Healthy and Sustainable Consumption Patterns Actions urgently needed -Provision of VIP Toilets, Provision of water facilities and Building of Recycling centre for conversion of waste to wealth through using urban Food method, by Stimulating local access and demand for fresh, healthy food with proposition includes actions undertaken by urban to create environments where sustainable consumption become the default. The solution has a strong link to food producers, including by promoting direct public procurement and various actions for supporting local farmers to adopt nature positive practices. - Policy in support of food environments that provide access to affordable, healthy diets, encourage food product reformulation and drive shift to sustainable consumption Relevant economic measures may include taxes on certain food products, tax related to carbon footprint via VAT, subsidies for healthy food products, and income transfers delivered through social protection schemes. - Well packaging and labelling nutrition food helping consumers to make informed choices, thereby promoting healthy diets delivered through sustainable food systems, in points-of-sale and out-of-home with proposition aims to provide convenient, relevant and readily understood nutrition and environment information or guidance on food packs or menus, to assist all consumers, particularly children, and promote reformulation. Who should take the actions? All stakeholders most especially the Government through establishing food dietary guidelines and principles and this should also be applied in guiding other relevant public policy such as public procurement, fiscal policies, etc. Ways in which progress could be assessed Through proper supervision, monitoring and evaluation by Foster states and national conversation around coherence for healthier food environment policies that cut across all stakeholders like including international financial institutions, UN agencies, intergovernmental institutions, academia, civil society, and donors, and focusing on making effective healthy food environment policies (e.g., labelling, levies, and marketing restrictions) the norm in all counties.236240243244245246247248249250251Group 3: Global Food System at Crossroads: Policy Landscape and Governance Factor for Boosting Nature Positive Production at Scale in Nigeria: The Right to Food Approach Actions urgently needed This was discussed aim in to deepen understanding of the constraints and opportunities facing smallholder farmers and small-scale enterprises along the food value chain. It will also strive to support food system governance that realigns incentives to reduce food losses and other negative environmental impacts, such as discouragement of bush burning, Promote afforestation, Crop rotation and Bush fallowing within the food system. • How we can sustainably manage existing food production systems to the benefit of both nature and people are; Through, improve food processing, promote afforestation, Bush fallowing, Crop rotation and A just transition to sustainable agriculture through policy reform and public support Redirect support for subsidies to incentivize a just transition to sustainable agriculture, addressing food and nutrition security as well the climate and nature emergencies. etc. • How we can restore and rehabilitate degraded ecosystems and soil function for sustainable food production, are through Conversion of farm wastes into animal feeds e.g. cassava peels etc., Production of organic manure from waste, planting of economy trees and Planting of cover crops e.g. legumes. Issues raised during discussion Avoidance of bush burning, promote afforestation, Crop rotation and Bush fallowing and promulgate policy in support of establishment of Nigeria forest guards to tackle of farmers/herders crises and arm banditry within the rural communities. Who should take the actions? -All stakeholders in the food system Ways in which progress could be assessed The progress could be assessed through proper monitoring, supervision and evaluation within the food system in Nigeria.236241243244245246247248249250251Group 4: Advancing Equitable Livelihoods in Nigeria This can be done through promoting full and productive employment and decent work for all actors along the food value chain, reducing risks for the country’s poorest, enabling entrepreneurship and addressing the inequitable access to resources and distribution of value by improving resilience through social protection and seek to ensure that food systems “leave no one behind. Actions urgently needed • What we need to consider to address food insecurity and enhance food systems resiliency in Nigeria through, Establishment of ranches for herders, Provision of employment, Reduction of insecurity and Provision of credit facility (loan) to farmers. Who should take the actions? The Government. Ways in which progress could be assessed Ways in which progress could be could still through proper supervision, monitoring and evaluation Provision of inputs for farmers within the Nigerian food system.236242243244245246247248249250251Group 5: Building the Resilience of Food Systems in Nigeria to withstand Vulnerabilities, Shocks and Stresses Actions urgently needed for Improved Food availability for resilience The action that is urgently needed for improved food availability for resilience are Provision of inputs for farmers for increase in production across the country, Provision of affordable credit facilities, Provision of storage facilities, improve infrastructure e.g. Road network, market linkages, Capacity building on environmental preservation and food reserved silos establishment etc. within the Nigeria food system. • Solutions that was propose to address food insecurity and prevent future sources of conflict, manage tensions and other stresses in our food systems in Nigeria was to Revisit tax laws, especially the current produce laws that are not favourable to farmers, Advocate for peaceful coexistence between farmers and headers, Engage the relevance stakeholders in sensitization/dialogue meeting on food production. • The potential action that could be taken was that enforcement of the existing laws that promote food security in Nigeria, adopt climate smart agricultural practices, effective and efficient monitoring and evaluation. Who should take the actions? Government and the private sectors engagement. Ways in which progress could be assessed Ways in which progress could be assessed id through proper supervision, monitoring and evaluation. This action Track 5 work to ensure the continued functionality of sustainable food systems in areas that are prone to conflict or natural disasters. The Action help to bring out issues on promote global action to protect food supplies from the impacts of pandemics. this is to ensure that all people within a food system are empowered to prepare for, withstand, and recover from instability. Its also aims to help people every stakeholders participate in food systems that, despite shocks and stressors, deliver food security, nutrition and equitable livelihoods for all. The potential game-changing and systemic solutions that drive the transition towards equitable livelihoods in Nigeria. • The potential actions that could be taken to advance equitable livelihoods in the context of food systems in Nigeria are; Subsidy of Farm Inputs, Availability of credit facilities on a single digit note, Policy in support to eliminate corruptions in all contest of food system in Nigeria, Policy in support of land availability through land development for increase in production to make food available for all in Nigeria. • The main actors that would put this action into place in Nigeria is All stakeholders in the food system. • How we can restore and rehabilitate degraded ecosystems and soil function for sustainable food production are to Discourage disforestation, encourage the use of organic fertilizer, planting of cover crops to help in soil erosion, Minimum tillage of the soil to maintain soil structure and discourage bush burning.237238239240241243244245246247248249250251At the core of a lot of divergences is that some stakeholders prefer processes that rely on individual/household level change (demand side actions), while others prefer processes that rely on institutional change (supply-side actions)  Therefore, the major area of divergent from the stakeholders was promulgate policy in support of establishment of Nigeria forest guards to tackle of farmers/herders crises and arm banditry within the rural communities. 2. Reduction of fiscal space: There was a strong suggestion for development of farm land within the food system to enable the down-stream stakeholders to have access to land. 3. Lobbying and interference by special interests: This was mention by some stakeholders as one of the issues taking away corrupt practices in order to achieved a sustainable food system in Nigeria. 4. Social norms are difficult to change Yes some stakeholders agree social norms are difficult to change but the welcome innovation with gradual change the will achieve an inclusive and sustainable working food system in Nigeria. 5. The assumption that youths would want to work in agriculture or agro-processing / food manufacturing Yes, this was a welcome advantage for the youth as presented by youth stakeholders represented. 6. Need to ensure that innovation and technology transfer is fair: Way to ensure that innovation and technology transfer is fair and equitable was brought out that if fairness, equity and justice in place avoidance of corrupt practice this will be achieved within the food system in Nigeria. 7. Stakeholders working in silos That enabling environment for all stakeholders to work interlinked the goal of SDG will be achieved in 2030. 8. Preponderant national emphasis on undernutrition: Make sure food is made available affordable for all the issue of undernutrition will be a thing of the past. 9. Trust deficits: That trust should be built across all stakeholders in the food system taking all as equal then food system in Nigeria will be built toward making food available for all. 10.0 Recommendations: i. That Government must ensure safety of farmers by improving harmonious co-existence between farmers and herders. This they say can be achieved through the following A) Allowing an all- inclusive Stakeholders periodic meeting between leaders of both parties. B) Empower the security outfits such as the local vigilantes, community policing and establishment of forest guards to secure farmers on their farms. C) Promulgate enabling laws that allows for ranching against open grazing. ii. Participants agreed that provision of farming inputs such as improved resistance seedlings, fertilizers, other agro chemical will help improve increased crop yields. iii. That Government should partner with Donor agencies in building crops processing plants and storage facilities to avoid wastage of farm products. Especially for fast perishable products such as vegetables. iv. To avoid wastage of farm products in the farm due to inability to transport products to target market, concerted efforts on the part of Government is needed in the construction of rural feeder roads. v. Law against deforestation should be enforced. Tree fellers should always plant five trees for every one tree they fall. vi. Participants agreed that, for farmers to go into large scale farming soft loans with single digit interest should be provided. It makes it easier for farmers to mechanized their farms. vii. For up to date know - how on new farming technology, the services of extension farmers are required at the grass root level. Government should engage the services of extension workers to get this gap filled.

2021-05-29 17:24:20205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/2500/135

544426242129141513315214113442114142220

With the array of participants at the dialogue, the dialogue was organized with fairness, justice, empowerment, and self-determination of four (4) pillars of engagement i.e. People, Practice, Policy, and Performance. The dialogue allowed for multi stakeholders' inclusion within the local communities in the food system. Also, the participants respected the various views as presented by each participant during the dialogue.• The participants at the dialogues recognized the urgency in following through on all the discussion views within their food system. • It was beneficial that the various stakeholders were part of the dialogue. • The dialogue respected everyone's view(s) throughout the discussion sessions. • Measure satisfactionThe systematic approach which allowed the stakeholders to speak out from their perspective ensured their active participation. The participants’ knowledge of their environment gives a clear guide into the discussion of issues that do not speak against their norms and belief

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The dialogue focused on a comprehensive exploration of the people, place, activities actions that bring food spanning through production, processing, marketing, transportation, nutrition, health, etc for safe food for all. The dialogue provided opportunities for the stakeholders to discuss and debate ways to ensure a food system that would be sustainable and equitable. Generally, discussions aimed at reducing poverty, increased food security, improved human health, and many other things were debated and each participant aired their views and opinions. The dialogue discussion was very orderly and interactive. The Rural Food Systems Dialogue engaged more of the rural stakeholders taking into consideration the major food crops produced in the area. The major constraints and the practical solutions to address the same were discussed. The participants shared their individual experiences of the status of their activities as it relates to the food system within their localities and pointed out challenges as well as suggested practical solutions through interventions from different quarters. Earlier brief introduction and a welcome address from the facilitator of the Rural Community Food Systems Dialogue commenced the program. Goodwill messages from the representative of the Council Chairman, religious and traditional leaders, farmers, civil societies other women and youth participants were received to buttress their commitment to the food system dialogue community. The curator gave a brief intro into the discussion sessions, divergence opinions and views were moderated and an agreed communique was issued at the end of fruitful and thorough deliberations.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The dialogue agreed the following were the key opinions and deliberations of the stakeholders during the summit, was tagged as “the ideal situation in their local food system”: • The major crops found in the localities are rice, guinea corn, ground nut, millet, maize and cassava were predominant in the food system of the people. • It was agreed that action to be taken to end poverty should include contribution of all stakeholders to the food system, helping the less privileged as well as multi-stakeholders approach to waste management. • It was agreed that local functional extension services should be domiciled within the local communities where they are accessible to the end users as right, adequate, accessible and valuable information is key in rural localities food systems. • It was agreed that practical solution to end hunger should include youth involvement in food system, produce what you eat, no laziness, everybody must be engaged. • It was agreed that population is one of the negative impact in food system, the way out include more food production cycle in a year, farming activities encouraged for everyone, household management (child spacing), improved technology across the value chain. • It was agreed that to make our food nutritious, available and affordable, following actions should be taken: encourage more production to cater for availability, input supplies, adding value, improving storage facilities, teach new technologies, sensitization on food combination and food consumption patterns etc. • It was agreed to have good healthy sustainable food system, the following actions are to be taken: keep clean cooking environment, food selection for age range consumption, create awareness on what to eat, good food handling methods should be encouraged e.g. rinsing vegetable with salt without squeezing • It was agreed that protecting/managing our natural resources within the food system should include creation of green vegetation and planting of trees as well as consciousness on the part of stakeholders to protect the environment. • For functional and equitable livelihood food system, it was agreed that sincere commitment and honesty of all stakeholders is crucial. • Continuous food system dialogue at the rural localities should be institutionalized by involving all the local community heads, traditional leaders, religious leaders, security personnel, youth representatives etc. within the localities. • It was also agreed that to assess the progress of all the recommendations as being implemented in the next 3-10 years, there should be a behavioural change in actions such as maintaining rural ambassadors’ of food system forum, local feedback system, taking ownership of local infrastructures236238243244245246247248249250251Group 1: Poor people are able to eat nutritious foods that will not make them sick Actions urgently needed Strand 1: Reducing hunger and inequality • Youth involvement to have their piece of land for farming • Everyone must fit into doing something across the value chain • Attempt to be responsible for producing what you eat Strand 2: Increasing availability and affordability of nutritious foods • Production of varieties of crops at different locations for consumption and the surplus sold to earn little income. • Government championing the food crop production and stored up to be sold during the lawn period at a subsidized rate to masses. Strand 3: Ensuring safe food • Good post-harvest handling guarantees safe food • Increase awareness on modern food processing technology eg false bottom rice processing • Training women on the method of food preparation to retain its nutritive value. • Food combination in correct proportion and required quantity. Cross-Cutting • The population a limiting factor to the equitable and sustainable local food system, hence house management is crucial. Who should take the actions? • All stakeholders are to be involved Ways in which progress could be assessed • Implementation of the submissions • Frequent stakeholders meetings/engagement/ put in place local ambassadors for food system236239243244245246247248249250251Group 2: Shift to Healthy and Sustainable Consumption Patterns Actions urgently needed • Awareness of food selection fit for consumption • Keep clean our cooking environment • Awareness on what to eat and at what age • Wash all vegetables with salt gently but do not squeeze. Who should take the actions? • All stakeholders (government, the people) Ways in which progress could be assessed • Institutionalizing the forum in the rural areas to encourage frequent discussion among the stakeholders- rural ambassadors for food system236240243244245246247248249250251Group 3: Global Food System at Crossroads: Policy Landscape and Governance Factor for Boosting Nature Positive Production at Scale in Nigeria: The Right to Food Approach Actions urgently needed • Commitment and sincerity by all-government showing sincerity to her policies. Issues raised during discussion • where are the local functional extension services that should be domiciled within the local communities where the end users have access to right, adequate and valuable key information in rural localities food systems? Who should take the actions? • Functional extension services domiciled within the local communities by government and private. Ways in which progress could be assessed • Government and the people-rural ambassadors of food system forum236241243244245246247248249250251Group 4: Advancing Equitable Livelihoods in Nigeria Actions urgently needed • Commitment and sincerity by all stakeholders is urgently required Who should take the actions? • Everyone- the people and government. Ways in which progress could be assessed • Rural ambassadors of food system forum progress reporting236242243244245246247248249250251Group 5: Building the Resilience of Food Systems in Nigeria to withstand Vulnerabilities, Shocks and Stresses Actions urgently needed for Improved Food availability for resilience • Institutionalized continuous food system dialogue at the rural localities by involving all the local community heads, traditional leaders, religious leaders, security personnel, youth representatives, etc. within the localities Who should take the actions? • The people/stakeholders within the rural food system-local community heads, traditional leaders, religious leaders, security personnel, youth representatives. Ways in which progress could be assessed • Rural ambassadors of food system forum -local community heads, traditional leaders, religious leaders, security personnel, youth representatives, etc.237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251At the core of a lot of divergences is that some stakeholders prefer processes that rely on individual/household level change (demand side actions), while others prefer processes that rely on institutional change (supply-side actions). Social norms are difficult to change • Family planning for birth control to reduce population explore The assumption that youths would want to work in agriculture or agro processing / food manufacturing • Agriculture often seen as poor man’s profession instead of the business Need to ensure that innovation and technology transfer is fair: • The dialogue agreed that that the rural food system required rural adaptive-technologies. Stakeholders working in silos • The dialogue agreed that stakeholders working in silos cannot be a practical solution to end hunger, within the food system, instead of the all-inclusiveness approach of youth involvement in the food system, produce what you eat, no laziness rather diligence on the part of all players in the food system, everybody (all stakeholders) must be engaged within the system. Preponderant national emphasis on undernutrition: • Sensitization on food combination and food consumption patterns within the rural food systems can make food nutritious, available, and affordable, hence cutting undernutrition. Trust deficits: • Commitment and sincerity by all stakeholders within the rural food system are very crucial to build trust within the system.

2021-05-29 18:00:19205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/17130/135

402209227131221103210

In Kobape Community in Ogun State, the participation was all-inclusive and cut across the various Stakeholders (Farmers, Processors, Rural Youths, Marketers, Health workers, Fabricators etc.) of the food system. The relevant and complexity of food systems of all the Stakeholders were considered in selecting the participants along the principles of engagement by ensuring Fairness, justice, empowerment and self-determination of four (4) pillars of engagement i.e. People, Practice, Policy and Performance. The Facilitator ensured creating a space for dialogue that is conducive to build respect and trust. Also, the topics for discussion were not out context as they were designed to address stakeholders perspectives on food systems complexity and all were allowed to express their view.The Dialogue showcased the principles of complexity, respect and trust, inclusivity as planned for the design. Participants were allowed to interact with one another considering the diversity of backgrounds. It enhanced joint learning and taking on new opportunities for engagement and perspectives while it also provides effective communication and information on diversified interest. It is worth noting that all the participants embraced the principle of “acting with urgency”. All were committed to contribute to the Food Systems dialogue recognizing the fact they need to work together as a team and thereby aiding positive change in food system. They should pay more attention to the diversity of the invited shareholders so as to have more divergent views.  The Focus Group Discussion topics should be more specific and direct to make for ease of understanding by the caliber of people engaged especially the rural folks.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The Dialogue is characterized by comprehensive exploration of agricultural livelihood activities of the community such as crop production and livestock production, the Nigeria Food Systems along the five action tracks and levers of the UN Food Systems Summit. The community is actively involved in the following value chain: Cassava, Rice, Cocoyam, Livestock, Fish farming, Cocoyam, leafy and fruit Vegetables among others. The actors involved in the food system in the community include farmers and farmer groups, Youth and women Organizations, food and trader associations, processors, government, private sector, nutrition and health workers, security personnel, Service provider, Religious bodies and extension (community health and agriculture) workers. Despite high rate of production of staple crops, food consumption pattern is relatively low compared to the recommendations and diets are not balance thereby resulting to malnutrition. It was clear from discussions that food waste and loss is high in the community due to lack of storage facilities e.g. Silos, cribs etc and leading to food insecurity, hunger and loss of income for farmers. Adoption of climate smart agricultural practices is low and the region faces climate change effects such as drought, pest and diseases, and soil erosion. It is therefore important to note that the aftermath effect of COVID-19 still pose a great threat to food security. With COVID-19, the challenges hampering the attainment of food security in Nigeria could deepen. The impact is already being felt in the form of rising food prices, food inflation had risen. The intra and interstate movement restrictions hindered farmers from accessing their farms in other state locations or procuring inputs such as seedlings and farm implements. Furthermore, the restrictions have hampered food distribution and marketing, which has resulted in post-harvest loss, reduced market supply and further increases food prices. The major focus of the dialogue was to draw a road map towards achieving sustainable development goals in food system by 2030 and taking into consideration the challenges in the system.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The top findings that emerged from the dialogue are;  Agricultural finance institutions inadequacies  Climate change leading to irregular rainfall pattern  Inadequate tractor for mechanization  Raw material for livestock feed are not readily available  Invasion of pest and diseases  Inadequate access to credit facilities  Inadequate of agricultural input  Public investments in the Agricultural sector are low, resulting in underdeveloped (rural) infrastructure (e.g. roads, storage facilities and processing facilities)  Low quality of education, and non-transparent markets with high transaction costs and  Land tenure system limiting new entry into commercial agriculture. There is a need for land reforms/proper implementation?  COVID-19 Pandemic  Herdsmen – Farmer Crises  Increased deforestation and loss of biodiversity  Inconsistent, uncoordinated, and inappropriate policies  Low technology for processing.  Gender inequality and weak integration of youth and women in agriculture  Planting pattern for rice and cassava have changed as a result of access to trainings on Good Agronomic Practices.  The use of fertilizer has improved yield but the shelf life of such produce has been reduced236238243244245246247248249250251Group 1: Poor people are able to eat nutritious foods that will not make them sick Actions urgently needed Strand 1: Reducing hunger and inequality The group identified the following action areas as essential to achieve impact:  Government should create farm estate just as they do for housing estate to create access to land and other farm infrastructures.  Empowerment of Youth and Women to embrace agriculture  Improve access to Credit Facilities for Farmers, Processors an Marketers.  Provision of improved inputs and modern equipment to increase food production  Need to ensure the Safety of farm produce and handling.  There should be constant dialogue and follow up action with security stakeholders The Government should address incessant farmers-herders conflict. Strand 2: Increasing availability and affordability of nutritious foods • Increase awareness creation on production of safe and nutritious foods. • Provision of storage facilities for farm produce • There should be a good market structure i.e linkage to Off-Takers and other existing markets • There should be a dialogue between transporters and farmers • Development of more bio-fortified crops varieties for farmers. • Implement comprehensive school food programmes in every community • Scaling-up food demonstration sessions • Expand the availability and consumption of biofortified crops • A partnership for investment in infrastructure for public procurement of nutritious food • Creation of nutritious food innovation hub for small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) • Scale up nutrient-dense staples • Reintroduction of Agriculture in Schools by establishing Young Farmers Club • Scale sustainable cold chain technology • Scaling-up household processing methods that reduce food loss and waste • Increase the production and consumption of neglected indigenous foods Strand 3: Ensuring safe food • Continuous dialogue with Major Stakeholders in the food value chains • There should be waivers for transporters that convey food produce • Reduction in obnoxious food production and processing practices through enforcement of existing laws. • Make social protection programmes on food more nutrition-sensitive • Legislation on Food Safety Bill in the Parliament • Enablers for equitable food marketing • Provision of portable water, toilets and efficient waste management in markets and other public places. • Coordination for food environment policies for safe food • Assemble and launch a food safety toolkit for informal markets • Increased sensitization on proper food production and packaging • Regulation of street food vendors and restaurants • Regular quality assurance exercises by relevant Government agencies e.g NAFDAC, SON Cross-Cutting • Continuous training and orientation of food handlers • There should be systems and regulations in place to enforce safety precautions • Develop new standards and legal frameworks for the private sector • Public enlightenment on proper disposal of Agro-Chemical used in the food system as a way to prevent water and food poisoning and contamination. • Increased dialogue and interaction among the Stakeholders • Generation of credible and integrated database for detailed food systems information Who should take the actions? • All Stakeholders (Farmers, Marketers, Buyers/Final consumers, Government, Transporters and Security agencies) • All Stakeholders should share templates, tools and prototypes for strategies. • All Stakeholders should come up with a unified tagline for sustainable and healthy food systems. • Government should empower her regulating agencies. • Private sector should work with governments to get the policy right through Public-Private Partnership • Governments at all levels should implement food for public works program Ways in which progress could be assessed  Build new public-private partnerships that incentivise and enable precision agriculture companies to ensure access for low-income, smallholder farmers enabling them to improve production quantity and quality and increase incomes. • Availability of a communication system to educate the public about food and nutrition236239243244245246247248249250251Group 2: Shift to Healthy and Sustainable Consumption Patterns Actions urgently needed  Ensuring hygiene while preparing food  Appropriate food preservation to avoid cross contamination  Encourage good relationship between buyers and sellers  Retailers should constantly covered food wares in the market  Ensure that food produce are well packaged to avoid contamination  There should be time table for food consumption in the household  The food vendors should have food plan for their buyers  Improve the provision of human services such as health care, environmental sanitation, education, and community development  Regulation of Products so that food being produced would be safe for consumer consumption.  Create awareness and communicate with policy makers about food systems. Who should take the actions? All stakeholders should work together to Implement Action Plan for Food and Nutrition Ways in which progress could be assessed Formal and informal education of household on food nutrition and safety strategies. • Reduction in on-farm and post-harvest losses, especially for highly perishable food commodities • Number of school food programmes implemented. • Number of supportive agricultural policy frameworks made. • Number of intervention programs to change consumption pattern236240243244245246247248249250251Group 3: Global Food System at Crossroads: Policy Landscape and Governance Factor for Boosting Nature Positive Production at Scale in Nigeria: The Right to Food Approach Actions urgently needed  Provision of more land for farming purpose by the Government.  Training on Safe use of Agro-chemicals.  Activities of miners should be checked as the most of the land in the area have their top soil being removed.  Promote enabling policies to address farmers and herdsmen clashes  Encourage crop rotation practices among the farmers  Policy framework on National Food and Nutrition  Campaign on the use of Organic Fertilizer because it reduces exposure to harmful chemicals, facilitates healthy soil formation, combats the effect of Global Warming etc Issues raised during discussion  Fallowing  Herders and Farmers Clashes  Activities of Miners on farmland Who should take the actions?  Government should address gaps in existing regulations and create friendly policies food chains. Ways in which progress could be assessed  Number of Training on modern farming techniques  Proportion of youth involved in Agriculture  Increase in the use of Organic fertilizer  Numbers of farmers that use quality inputs and modern implements  Integrated food policy and regulatory reforms to improve food environments236241243244245246247248249250251Group 4: Advancing Equitable Livelihoods in Nigeria Actions urgently needed  Government Support  Mechanization  Provision of improved/high yield variety of seed  Making suitable land available and accessible to farmers  There must consistency in Government policies as it is related to Agriculture.  Empowerment of Youth through capacity training and financial support  Training on financial services  Provision of Storage facilities Who should take the actions? Government Ways in which progress could be assessed • Number of organisation along food system that are being strengthened • Increased in access to information and services about food system. • Proportion of youth in food and agricultural jobs. • Number of women that have access to credit, land, and technologies.236242243244245246247248249250251Group 5: Building the Resilience of Food Systems in Nigeria to withstand Vulnerabilities, Shocks and Stresses Actions urgently needed for Improved Food availability for resilience  There must be a good relation between the producers, off-takers and marketers  Reduction of food price in the market  Reduction in the price of petroleum  Adoption of good hygiene for production and processing  Sustainable Land Management through scaling up climate smart agricultural practices, identification suitable crops for project sites and increasing land under Sustainable Land Management.  Development post-harvest and processing infrastructure e.g silos, warehouses, cottage processing facilities, cold chain logistics etc.  Establish value chain for food production, processing and distribution  Improve access to markets and finance for farmers  Development of Agribusiness supply chains  Establishment of Public-Private Partnerships for major food crops  Rural extension and capacity building for farmers through establishment of demonstration plots, Farmers Field Business School (FFBS), organising of field days and training of Agricultural extension officers on Sustainable agricultural practices  Construction/Rehabilitation of rural roads  Improvement on transport system as regards to Agricultural commodities Who should take the actions? • Government should invest more on research activities that can help in resilience • Collaboration between Researcher institutes and Extension Officers to promote resilience. • Regular Stakeholders meeting Ways in which progress could be assessed  Number of trees planted around the farm border  Adopting crop rotation practices  Provision of light land developing equipment  Use of Organic fertilizer  Provision of irrigation facilities  Subsidizing of farm inputs  Provision of credit facilities to the farmers  Provision of markets niche.  Legislation against illegal deforestation  Number of soil conservation projects implemented237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251At the core of a lot of divergences is that some stakeholders prefer processes that rely on individual/household level change (demand side actions), while others prefer processes that rely on institutional change (supply-side actions). There were debates on the Powerful Stakeholder. Some groups believed to work with Government, private or all Stakeholders in the Food System among the Participants. At the end, they realized the need to work together as actors.

2021-05-29 18:29:18205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/17237/135

403181182515193436519111036

As much as possible stakeholders involved in the food system were invited. During the engagement they were given free opportunity to express themselves without inhibitions. The complexity and multi stakeholder nature of the participants was recognized in forming the discussion groups to ensure they complement each other to discuss the five track questions.To ensure inclusive and adequate representation diverse participants were invited to the dialogue as reflected in the attendance list. The event was published and information about the dialogue given ahead of the dialogue date to participants to enable them to prepare effectively for the dialogue. Effective facilities were provided. The hall was big enough to ensure compliance to social distancing and communication was in both Yoruba language and Pidgin English. The response of the participants revealed that they were appreciative of the bottom-up approach to solve the global food security issues and ready to be part of it.The time given was too short. More time should be given to ensure that participants express themselves better.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The main focus of the Rural Community Stakeholders Food Systems Dialogue was on the five (5) action tracks as contained in the implementation manual. Detailed discussion examined food systems dynamics, major actors, environmental and gender issues, cultural practices affective food systems. Opportunities for improved condition as well as actions to be taken by different stakeholders to achieve food security, nutritious food and healthy consumption pattern on a sustainable basis in the rural area were discussed by the participants. First was the plenary session where the reason for the dialogue was explained before they participants were put in groups to discuss the action track questions. The dialogue focused on the five action track questions as follows: Action track 1: Ending hunger and all forms of malnutrition. Recommendations: • Farming should be for everyone. • Need for home gardens. • Review School Curricula at the primary and secondary school levels to include proper nutrition and developing interest in agriculture. • Integrated farming should be encouraged. • Mechanization of farm operations is key. • Construction/rehabilitation of access road to farms. • More extension agents, awareness creation on healthy feeding. Action track 2: Shifting to Healthy and sustainable consumption pattern. Recommendations: • Promoting high yielding varieties of crops and smart agricultural practices by strengthening linkages between research policy makers and farmers. • Awareness creation, advocacy, and education of rural populace on healthy and safe food consumption patterns. • Dry season production of safe and healthy foods to ensure all year-round availability. Action track 3: Optimizing environmental resource use in food production, processing and distribution, thereby reducing biodiversity loss, pollution, water use, soil degradation and greenhouse gas emissions. Recommendations: • Stoppage of bush burning and open grazing. • Addressing oil spillage. • Promoting the use of organic fertilizers as against the use of inorganic ones. • Convert waste to wealth through recycling. • Use of biological methods of pest control and food preservation. • . Discourage the use of chemical near fishponds. • Encourage the production of cover crops and making ridges across slopes to control erosion. Action track 4: Advancing equitable livelihoods in Nigeria to eliminate poverty. Recommendations • Financial empowerment of farmers. • improved road network. • Address security issues • Improved extension services. Action track 5: Building the resilience of food systems in Nigeria to withstand vulnerabilities, shocks and stress. Recommendation: • Good road to improve transportation of farm produce from farm to market. • Provide farmers with information on climate change especially as it relates to rainfall and when it is best to commence planting. • Adopt climate smart and nutritionally responsive practices – e.g. use of drought and flood tolerant crop. • Encourage farmers to form associations or cooperatives and strengthening existing associations/cooperatives. • Provide insurance facilities. One area of consensus was urgent need to address the security issues especially the menace of herds men to allow farmers go to their farms without fear of being kidnapped or killed. Also to allow farmers reap the fruit of their labour.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The main findings from the dialogue is as detailed below: 1. Everyone is to engage in farming even if it is homestead garden to ensure that we all take nutritious food. 2. Government and relevant agencies to assist in acquisition of and access to land for persons interested in farming according to need. 3. Improved linkage between farmers and extension service providers to provide technical advice to promote good agricultural practices in the communities. 4. Effective information sharing and dissemination on existing markets for farm inputs as well as related agricultural products and services to encourage all year farming, increase production, availability, reduce hunger and affordability of nutritious foods. 5. Government to facilitate the establishment of storage facilities to reduce post-harvest loses and ensure continuous availability and affordability during off season. This will reduce food inflation in the rural areas as currently experienced in the community. 6. Address security issues using community vigilante and police. 7. Farmers to desist from use of harmful chemicals and adopt good agricultural practices in crop cultivation, livestock farming, processing and marketing of agricultural produce and services to ensure availability of safe food. 8. To ensure safe foods, regulatory agencies in-charge of consumer rights and food safety should be strengthened to deliver on their respective mandates. 9. Promotion of Climate Smart agriculture technologies to mitigate the effect of climate change on food production. 10. Improved road network will ease the movement of farm products from farm to sales points. 11. Insurance of agribusiness is essential to reduce shock suffered by farmers due to unfavourable conditions beyond them control due to unforeseen circumstances. 12. Introduction of Nutrition education in school curriculum highlighting the dangers of unhealthy food choices in order to inculcate the importance of taking nutritious food early and empower community members and school children to demand for healthy foods. 1.236238243244245246247248249250251Group 1: Poor people are able to eat nutritious foods that will not make them sick Action required. • Farming should be for everyone. • Need for home gardens. • Review School Curricula at the primary and secondary school levels to include proper nutrition and developing interest in agriculture. • Integrated farming should be encouraged. • Mechanization of farm operations is key. • Construction/rehabilitation of access road to farms. • More extension agents, awareness creation on healthy feeding. Cross-Cutting • Improve linkage between research, extension services and farmers. • Climate change reduces food security. • Inadequate land for agriculture resulting to low production. • the security issues especially the menace of herds men to allow farmers go to their farms without fear of being kidnapped or killed. • Effect of use of chemicals in production on health of consumers Who should take the actions? • Government. Research Institutions. • Extension agents, Community members • Government and Government Agencies in-charge of land development • Government, intervention agencies, community members. • Government NGOs and Extension Agents Ways in which progress could be assessed a) Difference in the number of households in the Community engaged in farming before and after actions were taken. b) Agricultural yield differences before and after actions were taken. c) Number of farming households in the community involved in integrated farming. d) Hectarage of farm land cultivated. e) Number of farming households eating nutritious food.236239243244245246247248249250251Group 2: How to shift to Healthy and sustainable consumption Pattern Action Required • Promoting high yielding varieties of crops and smart agricultural practices by strengthening linkages between research policy makers and farmers. • Awareness creation, advocacy, and education of rural populace on healthy and safe food consumption patterns. • Availability of Improved storage facilities. • Dry season production of safe and healthy foods to ensure all year-round availability. Action. Who should take the actions? • Research Institutions and Extension Agencies. • Public extension agencies, NGO involved in nutrition. • Government and Research institutions. • Research Institutions, Extension Agencies and Intervention agencies interested in rural agricultural development. Ways in which progress could be assessed. • Increased productivity. • Number of rural people eating healthy and safe food. a) Decrease in postharvest losses evidenced by Percentage of agro-produce stored in the household with respect to total production. • Frequency of extension contacts with households engaged in farming in the community.236240243244245246247248249250251Group 3: Optimizing Environmental Resource use in Food Production, Processing and Distribution, to Reduce biodiversity loss, Pollution, Water use, Soil Degradation and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Action required • Stoppage of bush burning and open grazing. • Addressing oil spillage. • Promoting the use of organic fertilizers as against the use of inorganic ones. • Convert waste to wealth through recycling. • Use of biological methods of pest control and food preservation. • . Discourage the use of chemical near fishponds. • Encourage the production of cover crops and making ridges across slopes to control erosion. Who should take the actions? • Farmers. Government • Government and NGO • Extension agents, Farmers • Extension agents Farmers • Extension Agent and Farmers • Extension agents Farmers Ways in which progress could be assessed • Reduced incidence of bush burning • Low incidence of oil spillage and increase in productivity in areas previously affected by oil spillage. • Improved incidence of waste management • Use of organic manure and low demand for inorganic Fertiliser. • Increased use of biological methods of pest control. • Low incidences health issues associated with chemically consumed food e.g. cancer.236241243244245246247248249250251Group 4: Advancing Equitable Livelihoods in Nigeria to Eliminate Poverty Action Required • Financial empowerment of farmers. • improved road network. • Address security issues • Improved extension services. Who should take the actions? • Financial Institutions • Government and related Government agencies like FERMA • Government, Communities • Government and Private Extension agents. Ways of Assessing Progress • Increased scale of production due to availability of fund to purchase required inputs. • More food available in the urban areas. • Equitable distribution of agricultural inputs and products. • Reduction of poverty236242243244245246247248249250251Group 5: Building the Resilience of Food Systems in Nigeria to withstand Vulnerabilities, Shocks and Stress. Actions Required • Good road network to improve transportation of farm produce from farm to market. • Provide farmers with information on climate change especially as it relates to rainfall and when it is best to commence planting. • Adopt climate smart and nutritionally responsive practices – e.g. use of drought and flood tolerant crop. • Encourage farmers to form associations or cooperatives and strengthening existing associations/cooperatives. • Provide insurance facilities Who should take the actions? • Government and related Government agencies like FERMA • Government related agencies such as NIMET • Public and private extension agencies • Farming households in the Community • Public extension agencies • Rural institutions in the community including farmers’ organisation, youth and women groups and faith-based organisations. • Public and private Insurance institutions Ways in which progress could be assessed • Level of awareness of the connection between food systems and the environment • Number of households adopting farming methods that can withstand adverse weather conditions. • Extent of crop diversity cultivation among farming households in the community. • Number of farmers taking insurance policy for their business.237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251At the core of a lot of divergence is that some stakeholders prefer processes that rely on individual/household level change (demand side actions), while others prefer processes that rely on institutional change (supply-side actions). Those participants that prefer Individual level change believed that: • Individual level change was more easily implemented than institutional change. • Individual level change outcomes can diffuse across the community and produce similar effect as institutional change over time. • Individual level change is more sustainable than institutional change. 2. Reduction of fiscal space: • Arguments for reduction in fiscal space believe that most times only those in urban areas and those high places with connections have access to fiscal interventions especially Government fiscal interventions. • Those against reduced fiscal space argue that the fiscal space affects the national revenue at all levels of government and individual businesses. 3. Lobbying and interference by special interests: • Some participants noted that some individuals/groups were strong in lobbying and negotiating skills but for their personal/group interest. • Others opined that some lobby for the interest of all. 4. Social norms are difficult to change Most cultural practices forbidding farming activities at certain times no longer exist due to influence of religion such as • Forbidding farming activities on some special days • Female circumcision which affects health of individuals and reduce farm labour in extreme cases have been stopped in the community. • Forbidding women from going to farm during menstrual cycle. 5. The assumption that youths would want to work in agriculture or agro-processing / food manufacturing • Most youths do not want to work in agriculture or agro-processing/food manufacturing except it is mechanized to reduce drudgery. • Few youths’ own farms. • Returns on investment from agricultural activities is low and therefore unattractive to the youths. 6. Need to ensure that innovation and technology transfer is fair: • The female farmers are not given preference in technology transfer and innovation during intervention. • Social norms and gender roles hinder females from fair access to innovation and technology in agriculture. • Dominance of male in technology and innovation reduces production female friendly technologies. 7. Stakeholders working in silos • Pilfering may hinder operations of stakeholders working in silos. • Surplus food must be available to ensure smooth functioning of silos • The operations of the silos should be Private driven for effectiveness. 8. Preponderant national emphasis on undernutrition: • Low knowledge of nutrition affects attitude and practice of good nutrition. • Focus on production of carbohydrate-rich foods at the expense of protein food promotes undernutrition. • High consumption of low diversity diets by most households promotes undernutrition. 9. Trust deficits: • Distrust exist among producers and consumers of farm produce in terms of the quality of food items. • Harmful method of fishing especially as it concerns using chemicals results to distrust among consumers and marketers. • Sharp practices in preservation of food affects trust. • Lack of inspection, regulation of food system activities including processing, breeds mutual distrust among actors.

2021-05-29 19:12:27205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/17214/135

563917

The dialogue process adopted the principle to reflect the need for utmost urgency of sustained and meaningful actions at all levels within the state to reach the respective 2030 Sustainable Development Goals. An all-inclusivity approach was mainstreamed during the planning stage to ensure optimum representation of key stakeholders at various levels such as the Rural Artisans (Small and Medium), Rural Business Women and Men, Rural Farmers (Small and Medium), LGA Chairman, Secretaries and Members of Parliament at the Local Government level, Women Group, Indigenous People, Rural Youth, Local Government Workers, Health Workers in the LGAs (Hospitals, Health Centres i.e Public and Private Community Groups, etc.), Traditional Health Attendants, Rural Food Processors, Rural Food Marketers (rough food vendors, caterers, etc. Value Chain Leaders (i.e. Livestock, Crops, Fisheries), Inputs Service Providers, Agricultural Mechanization Service Providers, Traditional Rulers (Kings, Community Leaders, Community Rulers, Emirs, “Baales”, “Mai Angwas”, “Obis”, amongst others) Religious Leaders (Pastors, Mallams, Imams, Traditionalists), Security Agencies, Local NGO/Civil Organization Program awareness was done at the local level through distribution of letters and courtesy visit to sensitize the key stakeholders on the need for the sustainable food system dialogue.Specific principles were reflected in how the program was prepared, location held, nature of presentation/facilitation, cultural and religious diversity of stakeholders invited, and an open communication platform that respected all stakeholders given opportunity to express their views. The forum recognized the utmost urgency of sustained and meaningful action that will enable Nigeria to developed policies at both national and subnational for sustainable food system for all in the next 3 to 10 years. The dialogue had a broad and diverse stakeholder participation from different social and cultural backgrounds who shared their experience in the various components of the food systems value chain and also reflected on how their unique practices impact on those of others such as farmer/herder relationship, climate change, deforestation, waste management and further sought ways to improve or transform the current food systems from business as usual to sustainable system for both people and the planet. The dialogue held provided an inclusive and supportive venue for debate, collaboration, consensus-building, and shared commitment making through the efficient facilitation of the curator. This encouraged the exploration of challenges faced in food systems of Taraba state and North Eastern Nigeria, reflection the 5 key action matrixes, and learn from the perspective of others who participated in order to make change happen to ensure sustainability for all. The key stakeholders from different cultural and social background, communities and religious affiliation had found a common ground, through the dialogue, to deepen their appreciation of each other’s perspectives, to consider different opinions and to seek agreement where possible especially concerning the issue of security and its negative effect on the food system of Taraba state. The dialogue used a standardized approach for the convening, curation and facilitation at all stages of the dialogue. Local dialect and pidgin English was used to explain the concept of sustainable food system and also drive home salient poA dialogue structured and facilitated with the principles adopted in this report will lead to a meaningful engagement and positive feedback from participating stakeholders. Therefore, we encourage convenors to adopt and reflect these principles in future dialogues.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The dialogue was structured to focus on strategic steps to improve production, processing, market systems for sustainable supply of heathy nutritious food for all and achieving the SDG goals to enhance food system in Nigeria towards achieving sustainable Development Gaol in the next 3 to 10 years. This touched other cross cutting issues like policy development, climate change, resource conflict among farmers and herders, infrastructure deficit, poor road networks and efficient transportation systems. Availability of single digit credit facilities accessible to rural farmers, processors, markets and other service providers in the value chain. Critical innovations such as small implements and mechanization facility, the role they play in building a sustainable food system. Energy cost was also a major issue that drives cost of inputs, and products in the value chain.  Other main issues such as desertification and flooding in some LGA’s in the state negatively affected yield and impacted on the food system. This increasing variability in weather and climate over the past 10 years was a major concern among stakeholders. Understanding the concept of climate smart agricultural practices, the use of early warning systems, climate data and improved seeds that are resistant to drought and pests were also discussed. The interaction between various components of production and how they affect the national food system was also discussed.  Knowledge management and capacity building of farmers, processors and marketers were also attributed to the unavailability of extension workers who either not empowered by their institutions or lack capacity to reach difficult terrains.  Rising security challenge in the state emerged as a major issue affected all sectors. Some farmers and processors lamented lack of input due to decreased supply rising from the high security threat in some LGAs.  The role of government in providing modern storage facilities, processing facilities and transport systems to farmer groups was highlighted as a red flag to commercial production of various crops due to seasonality and pricing.  The role of stakeholder collaboration in building sustainable food systems was extensively discussed. Interagency collaboration, private sector integration and sharing of lesson learnt from various projects will help plug the gaps and ensure sustainability.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The major changes observed in Production, Processing and Marketing of food system in the community on your vision for food systems in the next ten (10) years The impact of climate change on rainfall patterns, flood and drought in increasing on year-on-year basis putting major strain on yield, production and marketing cost. Spike in cost of inputs both for producers and marketer due to the current country’s high inflation rate. The critical role of policies backed up by strong political will for implementation will lead the way for a significant positive change towards building a sustainable food system. As this will address other emerging issues from resource conflict, security, energy, inflation and mechanization Trade policies (import and export) to facilitate access to affordable, safe and nutritious food for all, while contributing to country economic growth and commercial objectives. (i) How these changes impacted positively or negatively in our food system? NEGATIVE - Insecurity has increased the number of internally displaced persons(IDPs) and putting strain on households. The community food system experiences low production due to increased impacts of climate change. The attending effect will increase in cost and scarcity of commodities within communities. POSITIVE: - New modern technologies are emerging through the intervention of VCDP in market infrastructure, processing centres and climate smart agricultural practices in rice and cassava value chain (ii) What can we do as individual, groups or organizations to correct the mistake? - More research in emerging issues such as climate change mitigation and adaption strategies. - Increased activity of extension agents to build capacity and resilience of rural communities. - Policy incentive for input supply for producers, processors and marketers within the value chain. - Policy to trigger subsidy for productive energy sources such as diesel, LNG, Biogas and electricity. (iii) How do you want our food systems to look like by 2030? - Improved mechanized agricultural practices in the state - Strengthened market linkages - Availability and accessibility of affordable food for all. (iv) The ways Nigerian food systems be repositioned to: • Reduce rates of malnutrition and improve health and nutrition - Increased value addition and fortification such as vitamin A cassava and orange flesh potato. • Contribute to personal health and other unknowns - Protecting the environment through improved waste management systems. Quality water supply and healthy food. • Strengthen resilience and livelihoods especially for vulnerable populations such as the poor rural pastoral and agro-pastoral communities through improved seeds, improved pasture management systems, tree planting, clean energy sources and climate resilient infrastructures, • Contribute to the well-being of women, youth, children and displaced populations (IDPs and Refugees) - Policy development and institution strengthening, technology transfer and support. - Provision of quality food and job creation for IDP’s and vulnerable groups. • Adapt to climate change considering the contribution of food systems activities to degradation of the planet - Promotion of clean cooking technologies, enforcement of law against deforestation, awareness and tree planting campaign across the country • Guarantee the regeneration of our ecosystems and nature and to substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions - Increase in protected areas, forest management systems, sustainable land management solutions, climate smart agricultural practices and technology transfer i.e. clean cooking for all. • Shape the livelihoods of those working within the food systems - Quality health system, subsidy on essential inputs, enabling environment and technology transfer. • Maintain functioning food systems in the wake of shocks such as pandemics - To develop practicable policy in support of good storage facilities such as strong food reserved system to take care of shock in the wake of pandemic or in case of any other food shortage crises. Who do you regard a powerful stakeholder to partner with – UN, Government, Donors, Private Sector, Farmer Organizations, Research Institutions, Academia?236238243244245246247248249250251Group One  How do we accelerate hunger reduction in Nigeria? - Diversification of agriculture related products - The use of mechanized farming to farm boost production - Providing solution to insecurity in the community - Rural infrastructure such as rural roads, clinics, boreholes. - Promote gender equality and empowering women in agriculture. - Capacity building of youth  How do we make nutritious foods more available and affordable in Nigeria? - Through the reduction of cost of production - Encouragement of the production of nutritious food by farmers - Provision of incentives like grants, low interest loan by government, banks, NGOs and other financial institutions, donor agencies. - Modern methods of preservation should be practiced. - Reduction of communal conflict through dialogue should be promoted.  How do we make food safer from farm to table in Nigeria? - Through rural infrastructure (rural roads) to assist farmers from the farm gate to the market  What is the potential action that can be taken - Instituting full participation of the agricultural value chain i.e. producers, transporters, processor, marketers and consumers. - The main actors are the producers, processors and marketers  What would change about food in the eye of consumers in terms of availability, affordability, accessibility, convenience, safety, quality, desirability etc - As a result of win-win situation, all the value chain actors must fully participate in the chain - it is all about the reduction of hunger, making nutritious food more available and affordable and also improving safety.236239243244245246247248249250251Group Two The potential game-changing and systemic solutions that drive the transition towards healthy and sustainable consumption in Nigeria  How do we create enabling food environments for healthy and sustainable dietary practices? - Use of GAP in production, and harvesting (Good seed and land selection) - Use of machinery - Use of organic fertilizer - Establishment of home gardens - Quality processing and handling - Good packaging and storage - Use of multiple food varieties.  How do we improve the experience of healthier and more sustainable food? Good practice hygiene  How do we improve consumers’ motivation and capability? - Use of multiple varieties from a single source - Good quality food with low price  How do we halve food waste at food service, retail, and household levels? - Rechauffe should be used to avoid wastage of food in households. - Hauling of maize is wasteful236240243244245246247248249250251Group Three The potential game-changing and systemic solutions that drive the transition towards nature positive-production in Nigeria.  How do we protect natural ecosystems against new conversions for food and feed production? - Planting of trees - Avoid uprooting or cutting down of trees - Avoid bush burning - Educate farmers on the benefit of ecosystem for food production  How do we sustainably manage existing food production systems to the benefit of both nature and people? - Practice crop rotation - Encourage use of organic manure - Peace should be maintained in the community  How do we restore and rehabilitate degraded ecosystems and soil function for sustainable food production? - Bush fallow - Planting of more nitrogen fixing plant/tress on farmland. - Avoid use of agrochemicals on farmland. - Avoid over grazing236241243244245246247248249250251Group Four  What do we need to consider addressing food insecurity and enhance food systems resiliency in Nigeria? - Quality improved seed - Good transportation - Government should provide loans - Providing good storage facilities - Improve farming practices  What are the cross-cutting solutions between economic, social, and environmental resilience in Nigeria? - Solutions to unemployment - More attention to the agricultural sector - More security personnel should be employed - Planting of trees to discourage erosion  What solutions can we propose to address food insecurity and prevent future sources of conflict, manage tensions and other stresses in our food systems in Nigeria - Ranching of cattle to be encouraged to reduce farmer/herder conflict - Mechanised farming should be encouraged to feed the teeming population - Religious, ethnic and inter-tribal tolerance should be encouraged. - Laws should be enacted to punish offenders  What is the potential action that could be taken - There should be law enforcement - Total restructuring of the agricultural system to create employment and promote corruption - Attention should be given to the health sector236242243244245246247248249250251Group Five  What are the potential actions that could be taken to advance equitable livelihoods in the context of food systems in Nigeria. - Collective best practices in food systems - Workable social protection policy  Who are the main actors that would put this action into place in Nigeria - Government - Private individuals - Private sector - Donors - Farmer organisations  How do we restore and rehabilitate degraded ecosystems and soil function for sustainable food production? - Use of organic manure - Application of zero tillage - Deliberate afforestation237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251At the core of a lot of divergences is that some stakeholders prefer processes that rely on individual/household level change (demand side actions), while others prefer processes that rely on institutional change (supply-side actions)  Therefore, the major area of divergent from the stakeholders was promulgate policy in support of establishment of Nigeria forest guards to tackle of farmers/herders’ crises and arm banditry within the rural communities. 2. Reduction of fiscal space: There was a strong suggestion for development of farm land within the food system to enable the down-stream stakeholders to have access to land. 3. Lobbying and interference by special interests: This was mention by some stakeholders as one of the issues taking away corrupt practices in order to achieved a sustainable food system in Nigeria. 4. Social norms are difficult to change Yes, some stakeholders agree social norms are difficult to change but the welcome innovation with gradual change the will achieve an inclusive and sustainable working food system in Nigeria. 5. The assumption that youths would want to work in agriculture or agro-processing / food manufacturing Yes, this was a welcome advantage for the youth as presented by youth stakeholders represented. 6. Need to ensure that innovation and technology transfer is fair: Way to ensure that innovation and technology transfer is fair and equitable was brought out that if fairness, equity and justice in place avoidance of corrupt practice this will be achieved within the food system in Nigeria. 7. Stakeholders working in silos That enabling environment for all stakeholders to work interlinked the goal of SDG will be achieved in 2030. 8. Preponderant national emphasis on undernutrition: Make sure food is made available affordable for all the issue of undernutrition will be a thing of the past. 9. Trust deficits: That trust should be built across all stakeholders in the food system taking all as equal then food system in Nigeria will be built toward making food available for all.

2021-05-31 05:47:44204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/12368/343988102113127145165180181199

56226244381811183420216311321612

The Southeast Asian Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture (SEARCA) is one of the 27 specialist centers under the Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization (SEAMEO). Contributing to this UN Food Systems Summit, which provides an opportunity to unleash ambitious new actions, innovative solutions, and plans to transform our food systems and leverage these shifts to deliver progress across the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), is also a step towards realizing SEARCA’s current Five-Year Plan focusing on Accelerating Transformation Through Agricultural Innovation (ATTAIN). Participants in the dialogue were carefully handpicked to ensure that the various groups of relevant regional stakeholders in higher agricultural education are represented. This is to capture the rich, diverse, and complex perspectives and dimensions of transforming food systems through effective education, research, and governance in agricultural higher education institutions in Southeast Asia. These selected participants have been in various regional and international discussion fora and have openly spoken of their ideas on the subject matter of this dialogue. To encourage an open discussion in the breakout groups, participants were informed about the dialogue’s importance as well as of their full engagement, with emphasis on a level of anonymity. Expert facilitators guided the participants throughout the discussions to ensure a healthy discourse while respecting convergences and differences of perspectives. Speakers were invited to give insightful perspectives in each discussion session. The Dialogue was expertly handled by a seasoned Curator, who constructed the group-owned outcomes in an inclusive and open way.The Dialogue was kept within the suggested 2.5-4 hour time frame. Keynote presentations on the purpose and objectives of the UNFSS and the Summit Dialogues were given to orient the participants, for them to take the opportunity to come together and identify priorities and actions they can take to bring more inclusive, equitable and healthier food systems, while also safeguarding the planet. The Curator provided the context of the five Summit Action Tracks, the complexity of food systems, and how the Dialogue could help shape pathways for the future of equitable and sustainable food systems. While the Dialogue sought to transform agricultural higher education institutions towards better contributing to more sustainable food systems, the Convenor did not confine the participants to only those directly coming from the academe. Representatives of farmer organizations, the youth sector, government agencies and agribusiness enterprises also provided their views on the discussion topics. The Dialogue, through its Discussion Sessions and Plenary Sessions, provided an opportunity to unleash ambitious new actions, innovative solutions and plans to transform our food systems and leverage this shift to deliver progress across the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Participants were encouraged to share their perspectives on how issues on food and food security could be approached collectively, not through one’s own disciplinary lens or own sectoral interest. The Dialogue sought to break silos by providing a platform and recognizing that those engaged in different actions and influences form one coherent synergistic food system. The Dialogue reinforced the need for the engagement of participants in the discussion session topics so that action is owned and driven by the different stakeholders of food systems.Based on the learnings from the hosted dialogue and other similar fora that SEARCA has convened, it is important that the hosting organization share the objectives of the summit and aligned to its mission. As the subject of food systems is a very complex one, it will be useful to identify the various areas or disciplines in the host organization that contribute to the sustainable food systems which will then be the basis for selecting participants known to the organization to have a good knowledge, experience, insights, and vision. The dialogue can be productive if the discussion will be focused on the contributions from these areas. A facilitator who is an expert and respected in the particular area should be identified and should be briefed on the background of participants. Since the Dialogue is designed as a targeted by-invitation only event, it is essential for the Convenor to assemble a relatively small group of participants based on its knowledge of and linkages with relevant professionals and organizations in the region.

Yes

234238241246248249251This independent food systems dialogue was organized in response to the global call to transform food systems toward achieving all the 17 SDGs by helping establish the future direction for food systems and accelerate collective action to this end. In support of the Summit and focused on agricultural higher education in Southeast Asia, SEARCA convened this independent dialogue to identify transformative education and research for higher education institutions in the region. It aimed to answer three specific questions: · What new knowledge/research/policies in higher education are needed in the next decade to transform food systems? • What innovative curricular programs, pedagogies, methodologies, approaches, and ways would be more effective to disseminate knowledge/research results to a wider audience and to ensure transformations? • What governance strategies and policies, as well as strategic alliances, are needed to ensure a more holistic approach to science and research and higher education on food systems? Participants’ discussions during the Dialogue primarily took place in three simultaneous small-group sessions organized according to the key guide questions above. The first discussion session focused on curricular programs, pedagogies, methodologies, and approaches that would ensure increased access in agriculture education and develop professionals that are able to address pressing issues in agricultural and rural development. The second discussion session focused on leveraging research for development and extension (RDE) for stronger alliances toward sustainable food systems. This discussion session centered on setting the directions for sustainable food systems in the research agenda of universities, colleges, and students; how these researches are used for extension and policies; and looked at industry as venue for internships, arrangement for industry-led research, and how industry can support the research for development (R4D) of the academe. The third discussion session focused on the imperatives for governance and policies towards an enabling environment. This discussion session looked at the roles of decision-makers, and policies to support the conduct of research in higher education institutions (i.e., What policies are needed to be instituted to enable higher education institutions (HEIs) to implement improved curriculum and RDE toward sustainable food systems?); and governance perspective in terms of implementation of policies on sustainable food systems.235238239241242243244245246248249251The Dialogue gave the opportunity for the participants to express their thoughts, share best practices, discuss insights, and put to light some of the pressing concerns about ensuring sustainable food systems within the contexts of education, research, and governance. Important key points for each discussion session are as follows: • Innovative Curricular Program and Pedagogical Approaches An age-friendly curriculum toward lifelong learning is needed since higher education institutions are now catering learners from the Generation Z and the Alpha generations. Interconnectedness is important. Agriculture should be linked with health, human nutrients, and agribusiness to make agriculture more interesting among the youth. Promoting agripreneurship among the youth and developing a curriculum that is responsive to the market and the labor force will go beyond training future employees but also in harnessing future employers who would usher further innovations in agriculture. Developing courses to reskill and upskill people from outside the university, such as farmers, should also be looked into. Credits could be earned and saved in a university credit bank to be used later. Degree may be conferred when farmers have accumulated enough credit units to get a degree. There is a need to foster national and international collaboration in a non-traditional way by utilizing information and communication technology. • Leveraging Research for Development and Extension (RDE) for Stronger Alliances toward Sustainable Food Systems Education and research institutions must be transformed for food systems to be transformed. There is a need to stop working in silos and synergize operations, to work with the whole value chain players from farmers to consumers. Agroecological problems are compounded by climate change factors. Sustainable agroecosystems depend on sustainable productivity. Research should embrace a food system approach to cover not just pre-production and production, but also processing, post-production, machinery, trade, infrastructure, nutrition, and health, among others. The academe and research institutions should engage the communities, farmers, private sector, and government agencies. We do not work for them but with them, in setting up agendas to directions. Our food system is very vulnerable to risks and shocks. We should set up platforms and interdisciplinary alliances to share information and best practices and look at opportunities to work together. • Imperatives for Governance and Policies toward an Enabling Environment There is a need for a governance system for food security for all, one that leaves no one behind. Investments on key public good are necessary to ensure that science and technology and education and extension converge towards the shared purpose of securing adequate, accessible and quality food for all. We need to start small, and with small successes, we can build models for upscaling solutions in the food system. To determine the effectiveness of level of linkages, it should adopt the national agricultural research extension system model. There is a disconnect among different key players in the food system, such as among HEI researchers and extension agents to the actual needs of farmers. These gaps need to be addressed by involving all the key players in the food system (i.e., consider farmers as partners and key players, not beneficiaries; bring together the problem and provide solutions to fill the gap between farmers and educators). Overall, the key recommendations emerging from the discussion were as follows: · Focusing on “family farmers” approach in addressing gaps in the food systems; · Including family, culture, and resources, in the context/narratives of food systems; · Focusing on younger generation, entice the youth to engage in farming; · Ensuring interconnectedness of academe, policy, research, and governance to provide holistic approach/system on food systems; · Recognizing the need for resilient food systems, future-proof agriculture; · Establishing collaboration of all actors in the food systems (e.g., farmers, processors, businesses, governances, policy, research, academe), with focus on value chain; and · Investing in key public interest and making sure that RDE go forward together to address gaps in the food systems, generating support, and making sure that policies on food systems should be for all.236238243248251Innovative Curricular Programs and Pedagogical Approaches Outcomes: · Adopting age-friendly curriculum towards lifelong learning, openness, and massification of education that will result to wider access to knowledge and research results, given the demographics of our current learners. · Recognizing micro-credentials, nano-degrees, multiple learning pathways, alternative mode of earning credits (e.g., allowing registration for modules, getting credits and accumulating it in university credit banks, or giving credits for work experience) will enable those who do not fit the traditional learners’ profile to earn a degree even in 8-10 years. Transforming the curriculum where 20-30% of the study program will be conducted outside the classroom will cultivate global competence. · Incorporating culture in the curriculum will develop a sense of responsibility among the students. Food as an expression of culture should be the central focus of agricultural programs instead of food as business. · Strengthening agriculture through the inclusion of multi-, inter-, and transdisciplinary perspectives and approaches in the curriculum so that the students can learn from other disciplines and innovations in ICT and the environment. Student exchanges among partner universities would also allow learning best practices from other institutions and culture. · Promoting agripreneurship among the youth and developing a curriculum that is responsive to the market and the labor force will go beyond training future employees but also in harnessing future employers who would usher further innovations in agriculture. One strategy could be by providing students opportunities for internships in agribusiness enterprises or by engaging students in agribusiness projects. · Incorporating Agriculture in the STEM program in secondary school education as well as promoting a career on technical education will help attract the youth’s interest in the field. · Shifting from Teacher-Centered Learning (TCL) to Student-Centered Learning (SCL) and Community & Student-Centered Learning (CSCL) will help contextualize the food value chain and food security, discuss the participatory model of sharing localized and contextualized best practices, contextualize the role of food justice, integration of traditional knowledge, and the development of place-based learning projects that promote community well-being. Actions to be taken: • Promote student enrollment in agriculture-related fields, through building a more positive career image in this sector, together with scholarships and other academic perks. • Train agriculture students to be business owners who would return to their villages or to the countryside after graduation, rather than becoming employees in the cities. • Support non-traditional learners, such as farmers, to earn their degrees through a flexible learning system that gives credit to farmers' field experience/practice.236238242243244245246248249251Leveraging Research for Development and Extension (RDE) for Stronger Alliances toward Sustainable Food Systems Outcomes: · Moving away from silo thinking to multi-dimension development thinking facilitate multi-perspectives and transdisciplinary approaches towards reducing food loss and waste among suppliers and consumers. · South-to-South collaborations facilitate wider sharing of knowledge, skills, expertise, and resources to meet development goals through concerted efforts. · Institutionalizing a regional curriculum on food system, recognizing that the food system encompasses activities, people and resources involved in getting food from farm to plate. · Harnessing the use of digital tools and technology to transform agri-food systems, improve access to market, knowledge, and information. · Directing more cross-regional internships towards research so that interns will gain more experiences in conducting research, information, or data analysis, etc. · Empowering and connecting women and increasing their participation in policy making to address their needs and challenges through digital technology. · Investing on sustainable family farming production, processing, and marketing. · Conducting research with the farmers themselves (participatory action research). Farmers must be equal partners in research design; blending of traditional and modern knowledge to give way to innovative farming practices should be considered (e.g., Farmers Field Schools or FFS). · Increasing policy appropriateness and relevance, stakeholdership, ownership and responsibility, deepening trust and partnership among stakeholders involved though participatory policy making processes. This recognizes farmers and farmer organizations not only as beneficiaries of these policies but also as equal partners in crafting and implementing policies and programs. · Adopting the landscape approach, looking beyond the farm, and taking a more holistic approach to sustainability. Mindset transformation is needed to contextualize into wider complex problems, including the aspect of climate change. · Integrating and synergizing ecosystems; enabling conditions are needed to improve food systems and its sustainability using agroecological approach. · Need for adequate and competent human resources that is attuned to landscape-based type of development; train farmers as farmer-extension agents. · Promoting greater understanding and competence along with robust policies and institutions through RDE. RDE agenda and food systems must be inclusive of farmers. · Evidence-based advocacy of farmer organizations and researchers (e.g., SRI or System Rice Intensification in Cambodia). · Need for Academe-Industry-Government interconnectivity models on research collaboration and co-sharing of financial resources to shorten the gap between research and knowledge utilization, and commercialization of research innovations for the benefit of farmers and society through extension programs. Actions to be taken: · Focus RDE directions on agroecosystem and landscape scale; long-term studies and observations of agroecosystems; alliances with local communities, NGAs, and private sector. · Focus research on impacts of agroecosystems on environment and vice versa; interactions of agroecosystems with other ecosystems; thresholds, safe operating space, and carrying capacity at various scales; mechanisms for multistakeholder engagement in landscape/ecosystem-based land use planning and for integration of multisector and agency plans; framework and tools for landscape/ecosystem-based land use/development planning; and tools and mechanisms to enhance uptake of STI in policy and planning. · Incorporate social dimensions in research, so adaptive capacity is checked and considered in implementing initiatives. This includes factoring in concerns such as adaption to technology, which is often difficult. · Pool research initiatives (e.g., experts and laboratories) to help share governance and themes for participatory work. Looking at long-term experiments for sustainability and adopting a multidisciplinary research approach (e.g., introduce multi-disciplinarity in curriculum and teaching).236238242245246248249251Imperatives for Governance and Policies toward an Enabling Environment Outcomes: • Reforming research and extension work, wherein farmers must participate in the whole process of co-designing agricultural technologies and innovations. • Treating farm families as partners and key players, not merely as beneficiaries. • Ensuring that agri-extension research and results are more reachable and accessible to the farmers. • Delivering an integrated and holistic approach in curriculum design in agriculture, food systems, and innovation. • Strengthening of major food systems in each country of the Southeast Asian region should be operationalized by integrated innovations in: Plate, Pocket and Policy + People and Partnerships. • Putting incentives in place for farmer cooperatives to work with students from HEIs. HEIs need to set up incubators for green startups and other businesses that are much needed for enhancing the uptake of agroecology practices and approaches that support food system transformation to promote partnerships among universities and research institutions, private sectors, and farmers organizations. Fostering partnerships will be critical. Setting the roles in the public-private partnerships are needed. Academe-industry-government and farmers need to work together. • Enabling financial grants to support farmer-led innovations through funds mobilized by the university research institutions. • Recognizing that a sustainable food system is knowledge-based. There is knowledge held by farmers, particularly indigenous peoples who have been perpetuating indigenous knowledge through their farming practices. Knowledge from the ground is part of education, too, and they are priceless. • Need to see more actions that generate results at the local/farmers level than merely talks. The government must empower local communities to work on their own food systems. • Need to support more studies and activities related to improving design of financial technologies for farmers and encouraging wider participation in these financial systems (e.g., loans and credit systems and agricultural insurance facilities, among others). Actions to be taken: • We need to start small, and from small successes, we can build models for upscaling solutions in the food systems. • To determine the effectiveness of level of linkages, they have to do away with the “controlled by national government system” towards the national agricultural research and extension systems model where it links the research extensions and other stakeholders in the process to have an inclusive, multi-stakeholders/multi-sectoral approach. This will work by building the capacities of farmers and farmers organizations: to organize themselves, to link with each other, to link with cooperatives, to assert that they should be recognized as legitimate stakeholders in the process, to facilitate and to push for the government’s opening that farmers are given a seat in the decision-making. • Look at basic research and policy support for the development of new varieties and breeds, seeds and livestock production, distribution of technologies, agricultural systems technologies, pest and disease management, postharvest management, weather forecasting, farm transport and logistics system, food quality and nutrition, diversified farming.237239241242248249Transformations needed in education, research, and governance for higher education institutions in the region: · The focus of agricultural education should not be solely on agriculture but what it can do for society. The current pandemic highlighted that there are problems that farmers, or economists, or doctors, on their own, cannot solve. Multi-disciplinarity must be considered in re-thinking agricultural practices and education. · In one of the countries, every year, the educational institutions target 200-300 student to enrol. However, less than 50% enrolled and of those who enrolled, about 40% drop out. · Living with what you have is key to sustainability. · If innovations are not picked up by the industry, then these will not work. There is a need to commercialize the technologies developed to benefit the people. · Participation in food systems is important for universities but it can be complicated. Sometimes, there is disconnect in curriculum vs research. It is important for universities to have a connected approach between food systems and curricula. · Incentive policy is important to motivate and attract researchers, and to work for productive research. Support from government and industry is also important as well as research support (including capital). Promotion of jobs in agriculture will also contribute to the food systems. · People can resist new technology and so we must strengthen social science in order to help farmers and people on the ground better understand the benefits of digital technology. · Working together and breaking barriers in making policies. · There should be a balance between doing research for work promotion and doing it to improve the food systems. · There is a disconnect among different key players in the food system, such as among HEI research and extension to the actual needs of farmers. These gaps need to be addressed by involving all the key players in the food systems. · Consider farmers as partners and key players, not beneficiaries. Farmers have to be involved as they possess valuable knowledge in agricultural research and development. · Three of the 5 Action tracks for the UN Food Systems Summit received the most attention and interest from participants – 2, 4 and 5. Meanwhile there was least discussion on Action Track 1 in relation to nutritious food and 3 on nature-positive food production.

2021-05-31 09:45:53205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/16675/39

68521648204811101619210841019456

This dialogue was conducted as part of the series of dialogue events on food fortification. The dialogue was directed towards the private sector and commercial interests whilst including the broad spectrum of interest in fortification including those interested in food fortification in terms of social assistance measures and the nutritional benefits contributing to affordable healthy diets. Bringing stakeholders together for this dialogue helped in sharing information and building trust.The participants were respectful of different interests and could see the benefits of working together across the private and public sector, promoting profitable business opportunities and providing public health benefits.Tailor your event to meet the interests of the stakeholders and to make it easier for the private sector representatives to join meetings. Networking and communication prior to the event will help to bring the parties to the table and a focus on actions to follow through on opportunities.

NoBecause of the international aspects of this event and the need to present different experiences, the emphasis was on presentations and panel discussion, with a final question and answer session. This limited input form all the participants but it was necessary to provide the critical insights that were bought together for the envent.

234238239241245246248249The focus of this dialogue was to clarify the need for staple food fortification in Cambodia and to assess this need in terms of the associated commercial opportunities. The dialogue provided a background on micronutrient deficiencies, the regulatory environment and governance of fortification activities, the challenges facing commercial fortification and a wide range of experience with the development of commercial fortification both from inside and outside the countries. The lessons provided were very valuable and the commercial focus provided real opportunities for networking between finance institutions and businesses, between businesses and between business and government.235238239241243245246248Growth in the sector supports economic development and poverty reduction. There are good opportunities for transformational changes in the rice sector in Cambodia through improved farming practices, milling and introduction of food safety systems. IFC has an increasing focus on the rice sector where their efforts over the years have been most successful in Cambodia. The rice sector can benefit greatly from investments in agribusiness, financial services and trade facilitation. IFC is keen to move forward with support to the private sector for staple food fortification and product development, providing finance, technical and business support and trade facilitation. The available evidence shows widespread micronutrient deficiencies amongst women and children in Cambodia. There is a need for more research to identify what the micronutrient deficiencies are and where the opportunities exist to treat and prevent these deficiencies through fortification of staple foods. Vitamin B, Zinc and Iron deficiencies are common in Cambodia and are a logical starting point. What we see in the world and in this region, is that in those countries where rice is most consumed, we see the most undernourished. In essence, we need to find ways of putting back the nutrients we take out with milling of white rice. We should look at these issues In a regional context, taking account of nutritional status, local food preferences and the challenges. Twelve countries in the region use fortified rice yet a huge number of potential users have not yet been reached. We can learn a great deal from the examples of successful commercialization in other countries. Standards and regulations very important for stability and sustainability. Fortification is an important strategy to consider, being low cost, with good nutritional outcomes both through social safety nets and in commercial applications. Postharvest and bio-fortification options and postharvest fortification are the techniques most advanced in Cambodia but we need to take to next level for scaling up. We have successful examples in Cambodia including for export products and these companies serve as a model for others and as the basis for developing the supporting business environment. Without the private sector, we may not reach the goals and the private sector must be recognized as very important players. We need the commercial applications to be successful in reaching the number of people necessary. Bigger operations bring economies of scale, and so too does the use of fortified foods in social safety assistance programmes. Strengthening of supply chains and SMEs are very important aspects of working with the private sector. For the consumers, product positioning and pricing are critical for creating product appeal and for successful commercial fortification. Commercial entities need to pass on the costs involved. They can succeed in doing this if the customers recognize that fortification is value added. Affordability is a product quality that is also essential to make a successful product. Fortification must be supported by food standards and regulations and the use of a logo for approved products. This institutional support is what is needed from the government and producer associations. Two very effective examples of commercial success from Olam Rice in Africa and Samaposha from Sri Lanka. There has been growth in demand for these products that has been accelerated by COVID stimulated demand for more nutritious foods. There is additional interest in Vitamin D and Vitamin C and Zinc for boosting immunity. The growing concern for NCDs boosts the demand for heathy diets if consumers understand the connection. The product range and means of fortification can be adjusted to suit local palates, food traditions and the different age groups of consumers with different needs. The value chain can also extend to include the farmers involved in producing the raw materials so that consumers can also see that they are supporting local farmers when buying the products. The critical elements for the making of a commercial success for fortified foods are: innovative product, secure and sustainable supply, processing to ensure high quality and food safety, consumer centric marketing and people led action, and a strong nation-wide distribution network.236238239241245246249GENERAL QUESTIONS and ANSWERS Many questions were raised by the participants. The questions showed that there in not a good understanding of the financing options for business in Cambodia and that networking opportunities are valued. There were concerns for who would be willing to pay for the fortification. This indicates that the prevailing mindset is that fortification is something to be supported by government or development partners and not seen in the same light as other aspects of food processing. There were many concerns about the cost of importing materials or equipment and for the capacity of SMEs to deal with fortification. These questions suggest that government can play a key role in improving the situation for the time taken and the costs of importing. Generally, there is a need for raising awareness for all parties, including the private sector, government and consumers. Development partners can continue to play a key role in awareness raising, consumer education, assistance with the regulatory environment and technical and business skills for SMEs and working with government to provide finance for commercial enterprises supporting fortification. National institutions like the Cambodian Rice Federation and Manufacturers associations also have a critical role to play in advancing commercial fortification.237241245246250For commercial development of fortified products, there is a challenge to create consumer demand in a country where price and traditions are the pre-dominant determinants for purchasing decisions. It is difficult for businesses to introduce new products and to promote fortification with micro-nutrients as a desirable product trait. Because food fortification in Cambodia comes from a background of enriching food for the poor and malnourished, commercial efforts to make fortification attractive to consumers is difficult. Stakeholders need to understand that profit is the driver for financial success and sustainability and not to think that there is a problem with profiting from the production of fortified products. There is a suspicion on the part of some stakeholders that commercial operators will be exploiting those who consume fortified foods because they associate this enterprise with caring for the poor and malnourished. The regulatory environment, labelling, standards and guidelines and the claims made on fortified foods need to be carefully managed to build trust in commercial products.

Additional links for organisations supporting the event2021-05-31 10:03:08http://www.crf.org.kh/?page=api_location_detail&id=1404&lg=enhttps://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/region__ext_content/ifc_external_corporate_site/east+asia+and+the+pacific/countries/ifc-in-cambodiaPowerpoint presentations2021-06-01 01:46:38https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/DSM_Cambodia-IFC-webinar-slide-deck.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Govt-policy-and-regulation-Rice-Fortifcation-event-20521_ENG.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/WFP-PPT-Commercialization-of-Fortified-Rice-Round-Table-1.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/CBL-Samaposha-A-Sri-Lankan-Business-Case-for-Nutrition-170521-1.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Olam-PPT-Food-Fortificaton-event-May-20-2021.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/2021-IFC-Mill-Assessment-and-RICE-fortification.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/IFC-MAS-Upstream-presentation-for-Cambodia-food-fortification-forum.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Indochina-Rice-Mill-PPT-Food-Fortification-event-May-20-2021.pdfWe would like to add the attached speech for completeness of the record of this event.2021-07-30 04:50:04https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/SS-Speech-on-Commercialization-on-Food-Fortification-20-May-2021.pdf

2021-05-31 11:09:02204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/11388/91203

191601315271413571074

The event was organised and convened through a consultative process that fully subscribed to the principles of engagement outlined in the convenor’s manual. The main model of engagement was a panel of keynote speakers to encourage discussion. The speakers were selected to provide perspectives from different levels and so that their presentations would complement each other: the programme included a global overview of the extent of the affordability challenge, three case studies from NGOs working on the ground in Sub-Saharan Africa (Liberia, Malawi, Niger and Zambia), and a forward-looking focus on the options to address affordability through the Action Track process of the UN Food Systems Summit. Attendees were invited through diverse channels to ensure that the audience was diverse and represented a broad spectrum of disciplines and sectors (multi-sectoral inclusivity). The speakers and audience were treated with respect and given the space to voice their comments and questions. The dialogue complemented research and practice currently being done to advance Action Track 1. The event was organised as a collaboration between University College Cork (UCC) and the Irish Forum for International Agricultural Development (IFIAD) to ensure a broad reach and encourage a diverse audience to contribute and interact in thought-provoking ideas and solutions.The Dialogue participants understood the urgency of addressing the challenge of the affordability of nutritious food through the evidence presented and discussion. Participants actively participated in discussions around solutions. The facilitator of the dialogue was chosen based on their experience and knowledge of the topic. Each speaker and participant were respectful of the topic, comments and other cultures. The complexity of the affordability challenge was recognised throughout the event and addressed from both global and community-level perspectives, and in the presentation in relation to solutions emerging from the Action Track 1 process. The speakers committed to continue their work and the conversation surrounding solutions through collaboration after the event. The webinar brought together a range of participants from different sectors and stake-holder groups: the mix between science/academia and development practitioners at different levels (UN, Government, international and local NGOs) provided a valuable platform for exchange between the most current research and evidence and current practices in the field. This allowed for an exchange of knowledge and ideas and a discussion about the best way forward.Familiarise with the principles of engagement prior to organising a dialogue. When planning on inviting participants identify channels that will ensure a diverse pool of disciplines and stakeholder groups, this will make the event and the discussion more inclusive and interesting. Food systems include everyone, and it is important to create a virtual space where individuals and groups can access up to date research and current practices on the subject. Prepare a platform on which to share resources relevant to the topic. From a practical reporting perspective, ask for information (e.g. sector, organisation/stakeholder group) in the registration process enabling simple analysis of participants to be conducted.

NoThe dialogue was the second of a three-part online series. It was organised as a webinar to ensure as many participants as possible could access the event. The online nature of the event allowed for participants from around the world to take part. The registration information showed that there were participants from Asia, Africa, the Americas and Europe. The keynote speakers chosen represented a diverse body of work including a global overview of the extent of the problem of unaffordability of nutritious food, and case studies from Liberia, Malawi, Niger and Zambia, that brought an audience from many countries and also allowed for interesting cross-country comparisons of the extent to which poor households are unable to afford nutritious food. The dialogue was structured as a presentation of work done by five keynote speakers; between every section there was time given to the audience to raise question or comment. The dialogue was facilitated by a stakeholder with experience in the area. The facilitator fielded questions for each speaker and allowed time for responses from one or all the speakers. Throughout the presentations there were ongoing discussions between the audience and other speakers in the online dialogue box which was available for everyone. The dialogue box served not only to raise questions but also allowed audience members to share resources of their own work and experience to the large number of participants, this ensured that all participants' voices were heard. The online format turned out to have advantages compared to a "conventional" physical meeting, in that it allowed for wider participation both of speakers and of the audience. The Q&A and "Chat" functions allowed for questions to be put to speakers while all participants simultaneously posted information on their own initiatives/actions.

234238243249250The aim of the webinar was to identify ways of addressing the problem of widespread lack of access to nutritious foods due to lack of affordability. This is a major challenge for the global food system: recent research has estimated about 3 billion people globally cannot afford a healthy diet. This has huge implications for achieving SDG2, and is a major focus of Action Track 1 (AT1) of the UN Food Systems Summit. The webinar provided an overview of the global extent of the challenge: this was presented by Anna Herforth, one of the lead analysts of the global extent of unaffordability of nutritious food. This was followed by case study evidence from projects and analyses involving Irish and other NGOs in Liberia, Malawi, Niger and Zambia. This evidence was based on using the Cost of the Diet methodology to calculate the least-cost nutritious diet and identify the number of households unable to afford this diet. An overview of different explanations of the problem of unaffordability, and solutions emerging within the Action Track 1 process, was then provided by Corinna Hawkes, lead of the Access to Food pillar of AT1. Please note that we have also included in this feedback some findings from the first webinar held in the series, which was conducted before the events were officially registered as Dialogues. The first webinar addressed the issue of Food Systems and COVID-19: Irish development organisations’ role in building back better.235238243249250Key Messages  Currently 3 billion people can’t afford the least-cost healthy diet recommended by national Governments  Actions are needed in social protection and in agricultural investments to improve access to nutritious food; social protection transfers need to increase  The cost of nutritious foods should be reduced by diversification and connection, not by externalising the true cost of food  Some community-level solutions can help address affordability and access, including home garden production of nutritious food, nutrition-sensitive aquaculture, developing recipes based on locally available foods, improving infrastructure and market access  The perceived low value of some nutritious and lower-cost foods needs to be challenged  The food environment needs to be changed to incentivise healthy foods and disincentivise wide availability of highly processed unhealthy foods, including working through corporate governance mechanisms  We need to work on multiple game-changing actions collectively to bring about a fundamental shift in how food systems operate and achieve co-benefits across food system outcomes.236238243244249250The Challenge How can nutritious diets be affordable for all? What is the current situation? Anna Herforth presented findings from her recent global overview study. Using the World Bank’s 2017 International Comparison Program (ICP) dataset, the study estimated that 3 billion people globally can’t afford to purchase the least-cost form of healthy diets recommended by national governments. On average it costs $3.68 per day to meet dietary recommendations (which differ by country): healthy diets cost far more than the international poverty line of $1.90 per day. World Bank data estimate that the poorest people in Low Income countries spend an average of 63% of income on food. Based on comparing the cost of diet with 63% of incomes, 1.3 billion people in South Asia, 829 million in Sub-Saharan Africa and 556 million in E. and SE Asia can’t afford a healthy diet. More diverse diets cost more: staples and oils comprise just 16% of the cost of a healthy diet, but fruit and veg cost 40% and protein foods plus dairy comprise 44%. Therefore low-income consumers find it impossible to achieve healthy diets based on current cost structures. What can we conclude from this analysis? First, there are implications for poverty lines: these are clearly set too low and need to be adjusted to allow for the cost of a nutritious diet. Second, agriculture and rural development programmes need to prioritise reducing the cost of vegetables and fruits, and protein-rich foods including dairy, in ways which improve livelihoods and the environment. Third, social protection programmes need to be re-designed to have a stronger focus on nutrition, possibly including assistance for home-based production of nutritious foods.236242243249251Building back better from COVID-19 - Irish Development Organisations Role in building back better. - Building Back Better from COVID-19: 2021 presents a window of opportunity for ‘transformational change’ towards reaching the SDGs. In doing this we must ensure that we reach the furthest behind first, and take a ‘food systems approach’. Policy responses to COVID-19 must also be gender sensitive if we are to ‘build back better’. One tool identified is the Gender Action Learning System (GALS) which is a practical guide for transforming gender and unequal power relations in value chains. - Inequality is a key consideration in building back better from COVID-19. For example, IFPRI research from Ethiopia demonstrates that the poorest households were disproportionately affected by the income and nutritional impacts of COVID-19 compared to Middle and Higher Income Households. - Irish development organisations have a role to play in building back better. In particular there is a need to support resilient systems, emphasise local and collaborative approaches and ensure the voices of the marginalised are heard through inclusive and democratic processes. Donors can support this role through flexible financing, for example, Irish Aid flexible funding was effective in enabling development partners such as Trocaire and Concern to respond to the immediate impacts of COVID-19. - On tackling malnutrition, we must look at all aspects of the food systems, including WASH, Health, social protection and livelihoods; this came out strongly from IFPRI and IDS research. - Social protection systems have been adaptive to COVID-19, and safeguarded the most vulnerable. Positive examples shared were the PSNP Ethiopia, Cash Safety-net Transfers in Haiti and Bangladesh (Concern). Advocacy and oversight of social protection systems is also necessary to ensure government transfers are sufficient to allow beneficiaries access a Minimum Expenditure Basket (Concern programme in Kenya). In the longer term, countries need to be supported to develop shock responsive social protection systems - In order to understand food economies in food insecure environments, it’s important to know how households meet their food needs. Tools identified were the Household Hunger Scale(UCC), and The Livelihood based Coping Strategy Index (LbCSI) which uses ‘coping strategies’ as an indicator for stress regarding access to food (Trocaire).236238243249Examples from Liberia, Niger, Malawi and Zambia Case studies conducted by different NGOs using the Cost of the Diet methodology highlighted some of the affordability issues in different contexts. A study undertaken in Liberia by Concern Worldwide in three livelihood zones found that most poor and very poor households would need to spend more than 100% of their annual income to achieve a nutritious diet. The price of fish has a significant impact on affordability. Seasonal price fluctuations, currency depreciation/import dependency and production constraints also influence affordability. Potential solutions include a focus on community-level food demonstrations, home-garden production, nutrition-sensitive aquaculture and snail-rearing, promoting recipes incorporating nutritious local foods, and increased use of micronutrient powders. Save the Children (UK) pioneered the Cost of Diet and Household Economy approaches. SCF presented recent work in Malawi and Niger combining both approaches to explore the impact of covid-19 on diet affordability. The likely causes of impact are restricted movement, curfews, market disruptions, disruption of livelihoods, border closures, and food price increases. In Niger (Zinder District) grains comprised about 50% of the cost of a nutritious diet. Prices and affordability increased in January-February 2021 compared with the previous year: in February 2021 the affordability of a nutritious diet was 129% of the income of very poor households. In Malawi’s Chilwa Lake Zone the cost of a nutritious diet was 250% above average incomes of very poor households. The second wave of covid 19 was contributing to a worsening of affordability and increased malnutrition in both countries. SHA presented findings of work on affordability by Self Help Africa in their Local Development Programme implemented in two remote Districts of the Northern Province of Zambia, with high prevalent stunting rates (about 50%). The cost of an energy-only diet was estimated at 58% of average income, but the minimum cost of a nutritious diet was 14 – 18 times more expensive than the energy-only diet –far out of reach of most households. Factors influencing affordability included limited availability of vegetables in the cold season, the high cost of sources of Vitamin B12 (mostly animal-source foods), poor infrastructure and remote location, and food preferences - millet is considered a food of poor people although it is a better sources of micronutrients than maize.236238243248249250What Actions can be used to improve Affordability? Corinna Hawkes presented five propositions about the nature of the affordability problem, and potential solutions emerging in the Action Track 1 process of the Food Systems Summit. Problem 1 is low and variable incomes of poor households: rational management of such incomes drives households to choose staples and cheap, often less healthy options. Potential solutions include women-led enterprise for neglected crops, nutritious social safety nets and school food programmes. Problem 2 is that nutritious foods that people want to eat are more expensive. Potential solutions include investment in infrastructure for nutritious foods and expansion of food at work actions. Problem 3 is that there may be low-cost nutritious foods available which are perceived as having low value,( e.g. millets). Potential game-changing solutions include developing an innovation platform for SME manufacturers of convenient nutritious foods. Problem 4 is the perception that nutritious foods are more costly when they may not be. A potential solution is public awareness campaigns with commercial knowhow. Problem 5 is the wide availability of appealing “ultra-processed” sugary drinks and snacks, fried street foods, oils and sugar, which people are willing to pay for even when they may be more expensive than more nutritious alternatives. Potential solutions include clearly defining “unhealthy food”, a package of food environment policies, and disincentives for unhealthy food marketing. Bringing these game-changing solutions together to achieve systems change will achieve greater collective impact. This involves changing the “rules of the game” to provide an environment which enables a nutritious food economy.237238242243246247248250There were no strong areas of divergence but there was clear recognition of the potential trade-offs between affordability and other economic, social and environmental issues. In particular it was recognised that affordability should not be achieved at the expense of poor social conditions (low wages, low remuneration to producers), poor environmental conditions (excessive land clearance, over-use of chemical inputs, intensive animal production), or adverse economic conditions (trade protectionism). Digitalisation - there was divergence on the issue of digitalisation. While some participants welcomed the opportunities for digital technology to create more efficient food systems, other participants considered that digitalisation could widen the inequality gap. There was consensus that we must ensure that digitalisation is inclusive of smallholders. Some potential game-changing innovations identified included e.g. digital communications for market prices. Systems - Ensuring Resilient Systems are critical for food, health, social protection etc. However, a potential trade-off was identified between designing ‘very lean’ systems, and having systems that are efficient but also have capacity to flex, adapt and respond in a time of crisis.

2021-05-31 11:09:02204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/11393/91203

148406241547101142533212891141811032468

The event was organised and convened through a consultative process that fully subscribed to the principles of engagement outlined in the convenor’s manual. The main model of engagement was a panel of keynote speakers to encourage discussion. Attendees were invited through diverse channels to ensure that the audience was diverse and represented a broad spectrum of disciplines and sectors. The speakers and audience were treated with respect and given the space to voice their comments and questions. The dialogue complemented research and practice currently being done to advance Action tack 1. The event was organised as a collaboration between UCC and IFIAD to ensure a broad reach and encourage a diverse audience to contribute and interact in thought provoking ideas and solutions.The Dialogue participants understood the urgency of addressing women’s empowerment and nutrition through the evidence presented and discussion. Participants actively participated in discussions around solutions. The facilitator of the dialogue was chosen based of their experience and their knowledge of the topic. Each speaker and participant were respectful of the topic, comments and other cultures. The complexity of women’s empowerment and nutrition was recognised throughout the event. It was acknowledged that there is no simple solution to increasing women’s empowerment while simultaneously improving women’s health and community food security, but with increased research and practice, we can start to form solutions to the complex issues. The importance of the role of women and their contribution to the food system was highlighted. The speakers committed to continue their work and the conversation surrounding solutions through collaboration after the event. The webinar brought together a range of participants from different sectors and stake-holder groups, the mix between science and academia and development practitioners and NGO’s shows that there was an exchange between the most current research and evidence and current practices in the field. It allowed for an exchange of knowledge and ideas and a discussion about the best way forward.Familiarise the principles of engagement prior to organising a dialogue. When planning on inviting participants identify channels that will ensure a diverse pool of disciplines and stakeholder groups, this will make the event and the discussion more inclusive and interesting. Food systems include everyone, and it is importance to create a virtual space where individuals and groups can access up to date research and current practices on the subject. Prepare a platform on which to share resources relevant to the topic.

NoThe dialogue was the third of a three-part online series. It was organised as a webinar to ensure as many participants as possible could access the event. The online nature of the event allowed for participants from around the world to part-take. The registration information showed that there were participants from Asia, Africa, the Americas and Europe. The keynote speakers chosen represented a diverse body of work from India, Niger, Ethiopia, Tanzania and Kenya, that brought an audience from many countries. It ran as a presentation of work done by five keynote speakers, between every section there was time given to the audience to raise question or comment. The dialogue was facilitated by a stakeholder with experience in the area. The facilitator fielded question towards the speakers and allowed time for responses from one or all the speakers. Throughout the presentations there was ongoing discussions between the audience and other speakers in the online dialogue box which was available for everyone. The dialogue box served not only to raise questions but also allowed audience members to share resources of their own work and experience to the large number of participants, this ensured that all participant’s voices were heard.

234238240241242243248251The main focus of the dialogue was to discuss how programmes promoting women’s empowerment can contribute to improved women’s nutrition and health, looking towards the Food Systems Summit 2021. The concept of nutritional empowerment as a method to identify barriers to increased nutrition was presented. The discussion presented findings from research and case studies from Irish and other NGOs undertaking projects focussed on women’s empowerment. The event was a platform to explore lessons on programme design and implementation of development interventions which can simultaneously contribute to women’s empowerment and food security and nutrition.235238239240241242243244248251The main challenge identified is how to promote women’s empowerment and improved nutrition and health in such a way that women’s individual needs are being met. Often nutrition programmes that focus on better community and childhood nutrition are targeted at women, but their own nutritional status is neglected. Evidence shows that empowering women can lead to increased household diet diversity and food security, however women’s own nutritional status does not correlate to their empowerment status. Gender -based inequalities exist within the nutrition. Women require access to resources, agency, knowledge and institutional support to ensure the are in a position to lead healthy lives as individuals in order to support the promotion of improved nutrition within their households and communities. This webinar created a platform to discuss the need for a multi-disciplinary approach to addressing a complex challenge. From the discussion after each presentation and the group discussions there was extreme interest in how to use the nutritional empowerment tool. Participants saw the value in measuring women’s induvial experiences and their own nutritional empowerment. Many questions were targeted at the use and adaptability of the nutritional empowerment index. Both the content of the speakers presentations and the discussion portion illustrated the complexity of women’s empowerment and nutrition as induvial issues. The challenge is to identify the main drivers of women’s disempowerment and malnutrition and the link between the two issues. Once the drivers and links can be identified; the appropriate multi-dimension approach to simultaneously address both issues can be designed, without any trade-offs. Some of the key findings are; • Women’s nutritional empowerment is a concept introduced as a method to capture underlining structural factors determining poor nutrition and health of women. • The determinants of women’s nutritional disempowerment are context specific and require detailed analysis to identify the main barriers to improved nutrition. • Both women’s empowerment and nutrition are extremely complex issues, and have multi-sector influencing factors and therefore a multi-sector approach to address them both simultaneously is needed. • There are opportunities to use new approaches to identify the main barriers to ensure appropriate future planning on women and nutrition. • The potential negative outcome of over burdening women with increased workload should always be considered and closely monitored. • Social behavioural change of relationships within families and communities can off-set the over-burdening of women.236238241242243248251How to Link Women's Empowerment and Nutrition: the Women's Empowerment in Nutrition Index (WENI) The Women’s Empowerment in Nutrition Index (WENI) was developed by Narayanan et al., (2019) to contribute to a shift in thinking about empowerment in the context of women’s nutrition. The index bridges the missing link between empowerment and individual women’s nutrition and health. The WENI introduces the concept of nutritional empowerment as a method to identify barriers to increased nutrition for women. It encompasses the basis of both empowerment and drivers of nutrition to expand on household nutrition but also examines the causes of female malnutrition. It measures women’s knowledge, resources, agency and achievements in food, health, fertility, and institutional support. There was discussion on the adaptability of the WENI, and how it may be used within the food system in different agricultural setting (arid-semi-arid areas), the WENI was developed with interchangeable indicators to allow for this, and the initial research was validated in different geographical and agricultural settings within the food system. There was interest of how the WENI could be used, participants discussed the role of the WENI index as a tool to use before project design and programme development. One of the main advantages of WENI is that it evaluates the most important factors in an area and could be used to identify the main priorities of a project sample. It will highlight the domains in which women need the most attention or the least. The index can be also used as a diagnostic tool to understand the needs of a community better. It can also be used as an outcome measure. The main role of the WENI is to capture underlining structural factors impacts women’s nutritional empowerment. The complexity of women’s empowerment was illustrated through the discussion, with certain domains of empowerment signifying a positive contribution to empowerment or in some cases negative. For example, the index can show that working women achieve empowerment by gaining access to income, however in other cases, women who work are disempowered due to their working conditions. One of the main outcomes of this webinar is the development of a networking grant proposal to continued discussion and potential for connection and collaboration between speakers and their organisations.236238239240241242243244246248251Evidence and Responses from Irish and International Development Partners The results of UCC’s research ‘Women’s Economic and Nutritional Empowerment: Gergera Watershed Project, Tigray, Ethiopia.’ were presented. The study was conducted by applying the commonly used Abbreviated Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index (AWEAI) and the WENI along with a series of food security, diet and health metrics. The objective of the research was to illustrate the complexity in measuring women’s empowerment and the links to nutrition. Goal Global has created the UNITLIFE project aimed at connecting women’s empowerment to undernutrition prevention and treatment in Niger. The project aims at sustainably contributing to stunting reduction through agriculture market systems and social behaviour changes. The three main expected outcomes are: improved production and availability of healthy foods, improved women’s empowerment for child nutrition and wellbeing and improved health-seeking behaviours, nutritional practices, and community well-being. The project recognises that this area requires taking a multi-disciplinary approach to achieve the outcomes by working within the food, agriculture, health, and sociology sectors. COUNSENUTH’s project ‘Lishe Dodoma’ is a community-based gender driven nutrition programme in Chemba District, Dodoma Region in Tanzania. The key programme delivery approaches are stakeholder’s engagement, Transformative Reflective Leadership Approach (TRLA) and Village Health and Nutrition Days (VHND). TRLA is an approach which actively engages influential community leaders and whole communities in a participatory way to comprehend existing gender disparities and empowers them to address these for improved nutrition. Chemba is a strong patriarchal society, empowerment of women without active involvement of men is impossible. Maureen Muketha contributed her Food System Summit Action Track 1 Leadership Team’s ‘Game Changer’ solution. This entails a need to increase the availability of safe and nutritious food, making food more affordable and reducing inequities in food access. It focuses on promoting women-led enterprises to grow and sell nutritious but neglected crops. It aims to support women currently facing poverty and inequality to create small enterprises, generating economic empowerment and agency in decision-making in producing, eating, and selling nutritious foods. It may also encourage leadership programmes for innovators at the community level.236238239240241242243244246248249251Discussion Panel There was extreme interest in exploring the reasons that women’s empowerment did not correlate with household’s food security indicators. The evidence shown from the research in Tigray illustrated why the WENI is important, often induvial women’s health and nutrition is overlooked when programmes focus on women as a route to improve childhood nutrition. Again, there was interest in all speakers in this group towards adaption current practices to other contexts. Throughout the webinar the discussion both from the panellist’s and the audience was used to share resources from the speakers and the attendees. The presentations from Ethiopia, Niger and Tanzania showed that there are complex issues when addressing nutrition and the first step is to identify the main driver factors of malnutrition. The speaker from GOAL Global based in Niger showed innovative methods to addressing malnutrition through mass awareness by using digital technologies to spread information. Reaching communities that were further away from the sample site. All presentations added the conclusion that both separately women’s empowerment and nutrition are determined by a multitude of driving factors. What was proven to be even more complex is trying to promote both increased women’s empowerment and improved nutrition in a multi-disciplinary manner.237238241242243248249251There was a general consensus surrounding the issues of women’s empowerment and nutrition, however the approaches to address these did differ. Some could argue that using women’s empowerment as a method to improve households or child malnutrition, as successful as that has been in the past, could also lead to the over burden of women and in some cases and ignore the needs of the induvial women themselves. There was also discussion on the nutrition-livelihoods pathway, on whether better nutrition leads to improved livelihoods, the discussion offered that there was a positive relationship between improved nutrition and livelihoods outcomes, however the opposite is not always true, that improved livelihoods lead to better nutrition. There was a note of the amount of research that is available to back these statements.

2021-05-31 14:40:17205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/22007/95

501337112463812216

NoIn the Japan National Food Systems Dialogue with Consumers Japan held on 23rd April 2021, MAFF explained the outline of FSS including the purpose and the key issues of sustainable food system. The members from Consumers Japan made comments on that.

234239240244In this dialogue, we discussed challenges and opportunities especially related to Action Track 2 and Action Track 3.235239240244The meeting with Consumers Japan was held to exchange opinions related to SDGs and sustainable food systems. The main remarks of the participants are as follows. （Consumers Osaka（Zen Osaka Shohisha Dantai Renrakukai）） - In relation to Action Track 5 (Build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress), measures against livestock infectious diseases, which are spreading in Japan and Asia, should be taken up and discussed to tackle them. - Japan is located in the Asia Monsoon region and therefore, reduction of the yield and price increase per unit will be unavoidable with the expansion of organic farming. Therefore, it is necessary to improve purchasing power of the people along with labor/employment measures. - For improving the food self-sufficiency rate, further supports such as price compensation and income compensation are required. (Nippon Association of Consumer Specialists (NACS)) - Even if we want to eat local food as ‘local production for local consumption’, it is difficult to continue choosing local food if cheap agricultural products are imported from abroad by TPP, etc. (Hokkaido Consumers Association) - Securing the "quantity" of food is a global issue. On the other hand, there are also problems related to the "quality" of food such as genetic modification, genome editing, and the use of chemical fertilizers. At the summit, we would like the participants from Japan to emphasize food safety and security. - For expanding organic farming, efforts at the production and distribution stages are indispensable, but prices are a major barrier in expanding consumption. It would be effective for price reduction if there was priming consumption. We request the governments to consider full adoption of organic farm products in school lunch. （Consumers Japan） - Regarding the expansion of organic farming and reduction of pesticide and fertilizer use, it is inevitable that the yield per unit area will be decreased. Therefore, some measures should be taken to deal with this issue. - It is necessary to reduce the use of foreign water and land through the import of agricultural products as much as possible so as not to adversely affect the environment in other countries. (Home Nutrition Study Group) - In order to improve the sustainability of the food systems, how to reform the way of consumption is a challenge. Some people cannot choose desirable consumption which leads to health of mind, body, and society even if they wish. And many people are not sure about what to choose as desirable consumption in the first place. For promoting healthy diet, it is necessary to make concerted efforts by different governmental organizations responsible for food, agriculture, education, and security in the work environment.

2021-05-31 20:20:07204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/7051/203

1230196733220626011850010259700250154541200022043141423001141740

From the get-go, this dialogue was not solely convened, but embraced multi-stakeholder inclusivity at its core by co-convening the dialogue by a private sector, public sector, academic and multilateral organisation. From this foundation, we aimed to contribute to a complementary discussion, involving stakeholders with diverse backgrounds from all over the world that could share their knowledge, work and visions for a joint and sustainable future. There were concrete examples shared to the audience from all kind of backgrounds, to make sure the participants were well equipped to build on the available expertise and experience of the expert (and non-expert) attendants. The dialogue was held within a safe, Chattam House rule environment, so that participants were free to share and discuss, but most of all dream off and plan for a sustainable food system transition.The dialogue was committed to multi-stakeholder inclusivity, as showed by the co-convening group of organizations and wide diversity of participants. By creating a safe environment, building trust, experts shared their work and knowledge on which further thinking could be built. We acted with urgency, asking participants what they dreamed of and what they (and their organizations) could do to get there over the coming years. Recognizing complexity, we found excellent moderators that were well equipped to allow a voice to all that were attending and wanted to share, in a respectful and constructive fashion.Always try to aim for a diverse line-up in speakers and moderators, as this will also reflect in the participants that will come to discuss your important work. Embracing this diversity allows for a rich discussion that would otherwise not be as likely. Coming ‘out of the silos’ is both an advice as a lesson, as even within organizations we sometimes do not listen enough or work with other perspectives. Use this dialogue to your advantage and think different!

Yes

234238240241243244245248LEVER OF CHANGE “Finance” and its links with ACTION TRACKS #1, 3, and 4: the focus of the Dialogue was on ways to scale-up blended finance (i.e. combining development finance and philanthropic funds with private sector capital) as an enabler for transitional investments needed to produce food more efficiently and sustainably to (1) feed an increasing population with changing diets, (2) achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (‘SDGs’) and (3) meet the 1.5°C ambition of the Paris Agreement. Investment opportunities in sustainable food systems are limited by three key market failures (lock ins) including (1) the lack of a deep pipeline of bankable projects; (2) high (perceived) investment risk, and lack of primary data/information asymmetries; (3) lack of efficient connection between investment needs of farmers and producing companies and different pools of capital (e.g. DFI’s, banks, pension funds, insurance capital). These market failures are exacerbated by a severe funding gap and a strict regulatory framework. One of the solutions to these failures is blended finance, which on the one hand enables governments to use limited public money to crowd in a much larger scale of private finance, and on the other hand allows corporates and financiers to have some costs and risks partly covered by public finance, boosting their investment appetite in sustainable food production solutions. This dialogue aimed to integrate the viewpoints of different types of stakeholders around blended finance mechanisms. The role that blended finance can have in the food system transformation was analysed and new ways of collaboration were discussed to truly accelerate tangible action towards the UN FSS in New York in September and beyond.2352402412432442452462482491. Main limiting factors (a) lack of incentives for the private sector to invest in sustainable food production (b) lack of knowledge/common understanding of innovative blended finance mechanisms by all actors involved, including which type of solution works best in specific situations, how the risk sharing works and what is the return on investment; (c) difficulty in building an investment pipeline, especially when this entails reaching out to the smallholder farmers (d) investment risks are perceived higher than for BAU (e) lack of data, metrics and standardization (e.g. for measuring impacts) limit transparency on the environmental and social impact of blended finance instruments, product structuring and bankability (f) disconnection between actors within the production supply chain, between production and financial actors, between different pools of capital, and between different donors 2. Ways to address these limiting factors CREATING INCENTIVES: (1) Work towards a price of food that reflects the true social and environmental costs of production (2) Transition to a more encompassing definition of “economic return” in business cases to consider the long-term and the internalization of hidden costs to natural capital (3) Stakeholders and investors to increase pressure on food corporates reduce risks related to unsustainable production and create incentives for farmers (4) Investors to reward corporate investing in capacity building and technical assistance of farmers (5) Reduce investment barriers/incentivize farmers, e.g. by lowering certification costs for smallholders, approving longer-term loans linked to sustainability targets, lowering interest rates (6) Financial institutions to have top management-endorsed sustainability objectives and to create incentives for staff to get this type of deals off the ground (7) Governments to work across ministries to reach common goals in different sectors, to create an enabling environment for investments, and to redirect public finance support towards food systems that add instead of subtracting value through hidden costs ADDRESSING LACK OF KNOWLEDGE: (1) Incubate business models and scale-up successful experiences through technical assistance, with emphasis on the youth and on innovation, and with a geographical focus (2) Technical assistance to farmers (e.g. to analyze markets for sustainable produce, to adopt agricultural innovation and adapt it to local circumstances, to prepare a business plan to access finance, to optimize returns over 5-7 years instead of short term) (3) Technical assistance to investment officers BUILDING AN INVESTMENT PIPELINE: (1) Create more investment funds with a transformative potential (2) Develop small-size ticket financing solutions for smaller farmers, distinguish between blended finance for the farmers and for off-takers (3) Build relationships between farmers and local financial actors (4) Simplify structures and process of blended finance instruments to attract more investment opportunities/standardize contracts (5) Increase MDBs support when projects are not bankable (6) Advance innovation on institutional aspects for participatory planning of investments that can then be financed through blended solutions (7) Include investors in the blended finance mechanism’s board room, to assure that projects in the pipeline are attractive to them ADDRESSING INVESTMENT RISKS: (1) Allow farmer cooperatives/communities to receive financing to lower risks and costs (2) Direct more public and private funding towards science-based innovation to de-risk investments (3) Step-up innovation around risk mitigation & sharing solutions (e.g. climate finance lab, blended finance pilots) (4) Develop tools for climate and biodiversity risk assessment tailored to investment officers of local / regional banks MEASURING IMPACT, TRANSPARENCY, AND TRACEABILITY: (1) Low-cost digitization solutions to allow data gathering and increase transparency (2) Address the digital divide, by supporting farmers to access and use digital solutions (3) Work towards standardization of impact measurement, building on KPIs being developed by the research and innovation ecosystem, e.g. avoided emissions, water productivity, etc., but considering that measuring impact can be very costly as it may require specialized people (4) Aim for a standard impact matrix that is science-based and can be certified (5) Rely on local organizations to measure baselines and impact (after providing technical assistance) CONNECTING ACTORS: (1) Work towards a shared ambition level to push sustainable food systems to the top of the agenda (2) Build partnerships to build trust and guarantee the availability of operating loans (3) Address the fragmentation of the value chain, by mapping and addressing all actors in the value chain and make sure that all these economic agents, can reap the benefits of their investments in sustainable food production (4) Develop common narratives for all stakeholders to bridge expectations, institutional cultures and mindsets (5) Improve successful matching between investors and producers, by mapping the different sources of finance around food (6) Connect donors to work on common requirements for concessional capital in the food sector to maximize the catalytic role of concessional capital and development impacts (7) Connect farmers with tech partners to scale up agritech adoption, with aggregators encouraging farmers to adopt technology (8) Intracompany and intercompany collaboration to make the use of blended finance mainstream among corporates.2362382402412422442452462482491. Building blended finance at scale; how can we step up public - private financial commitments to unleash more capital? A. The discussion focused a lot around the topic of incentives. - Incentives within commercial and development Banks: it can be a challenge to convince people in a bank to take on and see through the blended finance from beginning to end because it's usually outside the business-as-usual type of transactions and it requires more time and more effort. And so, this effort has to be worth it. There's a couple of ways how incentives can help motivate staff to take those deals on. One is integrating KPIs that can make it worthwhile for the staff, from a personal perspective, for example to be promoted. But it can also be super helpful to witness another colleague successfully closing a deal and being rewarded and recognized for it within the bank. And so, one success story can lead to another, as peers are motivated to do similar things to also get the same recognition. - Incentives for corporates: it would be ideal if the shareholders would also evaluate the corporates according to criteria that are more aligned with sustainability. So, currently a lot of the ways how corporates are being evaluated centers around how much of their volume of Source Products is third-party, verified or certified. But that does not always include all things that this corporate is doing. For example, if it's providing technical assistance to the investors and trying to improve practices of farming for example, this would simply be missed in this type of evaluation and so trying to work on the ESG evaluation criteria of corporates would also provide better incentives to work towards Blended Finance to scale up sustainable food and agriculture - Incentives for the farmers. If there's no client demand from the corporate side or from the farm side, even if we can get commitments and more blended finance, it simply won't work. So, the farmer and the corporate would need to see how a better food system can also benefit them. B. We also discussed the importance of de-risking mechanisms such as portfolio guarantees and (long-term) off-take agreements. The off-take agreements are particularly relevant if you want to secure cash flows, which for smallholder farmers is a very important aspect. C. Then, we focused on addressing systemic barriers. The problem is that we're not paying the true price of food. So, neither the water cost or the carbon cost or the deforestation that we cause when we go to the supermarket. If we paid the true cost of food, that would unlock and direct public and private finance towards sustainable production at much larger scale. So, this is a thing for governments to regulate. In that sense, the EU taxonomy can be helpful, as well as new climate laws. D. Another important solution is an open letter from both public and private finance stakeholders in the lead-up to the food system Summit to basically unite behind an ambitious vision and commitment.2362382402412432442452462482. What do value chain actors (farmers, processors, traders, off-takers) need to create sufficient investable opportunities? A. We discussed the importance of a whole chain approach that is pointed at access to markets. If you achieve access to markets, then access to finance will probably follow as they are deeply interrelated. As the sector is too differentiated, we should not hope to achieve access to finance for individuals. A way to make value chains more efficient is to cut out actors and identify champions of the value chain by private sector and financial institutions. We need to gather attention around business and investment opportunities, showcase these and access to finance will improve along the rest of the value chain. B. There still however remains the need to de-risk, which is urgently experience by all players. As agriculture investment is typically long-term and there is a gap in yields and the sustainable transition, farmers should be support by adjusting finance services and solutions to smaller farmers and SMEs so that they can invest in the translation as economic actors. In this respect, there is a lack of finance from (local) banks to finance agriculture as the required long-term investments are currently not possible for financial institutions. De-risking can increase bankable projects together with innovative financial solutions that make transactions possible. Finance should be seen as part of the solution and not of the problem, and should be at the forefront of dialogues. In addition, we must provide better risk profiling metrics, which are specific on the one hand and general (global level) on other hand. C. An issue we discussed is inequality resulting from the digital divide. Technology is very important for value chain traceability and transparency, thus influencing investment decisions along the chain. These technology solutions are in place, a lot of good examples we heard in our group about technology driving, better investment also for smallholder farmers, but there is still an issue of digital divide. In order to reduce inequality, we need to support smallholder farmers with the digital for financial markets, which can improve investment. - Another message to reduce inequality is blended multi stakeholder partnerships, not only blended finance. Acknowledging all players as partners, from farmers to consumers, including the midstream players, and blending them is absolutely crucial for alignment around ambitious sustainability goals. This brings us to another challenge, the huge lack of knowledge about the value chain functions, which entails knowledge on who the actors really are, understanding the role of farmers as economic actors at whatever scale they are operating and making sure that they can get a fair value for their work. D. We discussed that the food system Summit is an important starting point to understand the true nature of the challenge and agree on what it is to do no harm with investment. Clarifying, what is the stick and what is the carrot? This question is necessary to make sure that we repurpose agricultural subsidies and connect the stick and carrot approach. An example provided by this group is to incentivize blended finance for sustainable and deforestation free agriculture by governments. Hereby, off-takers and large corporates have a crucial role to send a demand signal for sustainable and deforestation free commodities. Moving forward, the Summit is just the beginning and after which we need to listen to the finance lever and work together to combine stick and carrot.2362382402412432442452462482493. How can the so-called innovation ecosystems (e.g. NGO’s, UN agencies, social enterprises, international financial institutions, research organizations) efforts to scale? A. To overcome the lack of bankable projects, we discussed that science and innovation can be used for de-risking blended finance structures and delivering efficient, effective and transformative technical assistance at a pre-investment stage. This is needed to prioritize deal flow to help investors understand the risks and implement those strategies needed in terms of adaptation. To ensure impact at scale, specialized people need support and work closely with the local ecosystem to create trust and get them to take the last mile, such as financial intermediaries, regional and local banks. Those are the ones supporting small-scale farmers and have trust within. This requires simplified tools to measure and assist on local scale. What is measured gets done; for which ways to measure natural capital and ecosystem benefits must be standardized to overcome the challenge of true pricing and reaching scale. We need to find simple measures for the different facets that are very context specific to examine the kinds of impacts achieved and measurements that have been adopted. B. In order to address the lack of evidence on the environmental and social impact of different blended instruments, different actors, such as the CGIAR Commission, should leverage evidence of the impact of different investment models on sustainable agricultural intensification. Research by SAFIN/Convergence should call to action to donors to focus more resources around four types of blended models that are designed to combine scale of financial mobilization and scale of development impact. Agreement among donors to streamline requirements for concessional capital to be used in blended structures in the sector and/or to use concessional capital more catalytically (more early stage, more high-risk tolerant uses). Financial institutions must structure properly from the very beginning on to avoid wrong incentives. C. There is a need to demystify markets of financial product offerings and bring more transparency to navigate the cluster offerings in the blended finance market. This can be achieved by blending actors in the innovation ecosystem by not only formal partnership arrangements in the set-up of blended structures but also, and most important, narratives and other tools to bridge expectations, languages, understandings and ways of working. Alignment between actors is crucial in overcoming the lack of shared understanding about the main financial gaps and the lack of consensus around the best fit between type of blended solution and specific uses or market situations. In order to be able to optimize the use of finance, it is essential we fix markets and the unstructured, fragmented value chains. The structures and products are too complex for investment opportunities and require process simplification and mainstreaming the sharing of information. D. Between a variety of stakeholders, there is a sheer magnitude of capacity gaps, both financial and non-financial. It is essential to build up capacity at the institutional level to ensure investment possibilities and opportunities are identified and lead to the kind of transformative impact that is needed. Institutional innovation, particularly around inclusive governance of blended finance transactions, needs to focus not only on the “hard” side of science but also on social and governance issues.2362382402412422432442452484. How do we ensure that investable opportunities provide a sufficient business case? A. The Earth should no longer be ignored as a stakeholder within decision making and include the benefits of an investment to the planet as a return. Valuation of ecosystem services provided by the Earth can enable us to put the Earth as a stakeholder on the negotiating table. Factoring in climate risk within business operations can help create the business case for climate action. From a bank's perspective, commitment from the top level is needed to implement such a strategy and to integrate blended finance, where governments also play an important role. We have to realize that there is a strong economic drive, especially in poor regions, to damage the nature because out of lack of finance, lack of resources and knowledge. Providing finance to those rural areas would help, together with technical assistance. B. We need blended finance to transition to a better reality and create a food system that produces sufficient and healthy foods. Firstly, the incentives for farmers need to be upped and re-aligned. For this, banks need to take into account that different types of farmers have different interests. Lowering interest rates is not the only way, especially where interest rates are already low. Banks and investors should focus their energy on terms and conditions, including the length of the tenor, to truly appeal to farmer needs, and correlate these loans with targets on sustainability. Without a business case, there is no viable sustainability in there. - Secondly, the package of solutions to farmers may be too difficult to adopt. Solutions do not come as silver bullets, but as a package. There is a need to assess if these solutions are not too difficult for the famer to adapt to local environments, by using applied research and testing together with agricultural innovation and putting knowledge in hands of farmers. - Thirdly, in order to get these solutions to scale, we have to tailor blueprints which might require more work. Ideally, we would want blueprints at scale, noting that there are local realities for implementation. Sufficient investments needed in the 5 key drivers of change, like the Sustainable Rice Platform, noting local differences, to stimulate uptake and scale. Aggregators should take up the role to enable farmers to really uptake technology within the supply chain. C. Blended finance is an instrument, a means to an end, which should become more mainstream. However, there is also a big role to play for unblended finance which needs to be repurposed and refocused. Supply chain players need to interact differently with (new) players in their value chain by getting out of silos, even within organizations by including finance teams and getting conversation within mainstream. It is essential to have intercompany as well as intracompany collaboration. Moreover, a market-based approach is needed, working with existing lenders to make more efficient use of subsidies. Smaller deals, reduce approach and long-term capital is key. In the group there was willingness to work collaboratively, especially working to bring together different pools of capital with different objectives (social, environmental, economic) for greater impact. D. Right now, sufficient business case is limited by a focus on economic growth only, e.g. focus on non-eco friendly transactions as opposed to eco-friendly transactions, as well as the absence of sufficient demand for sustainable products and services. Financial institutions should have clear objectives to advance sustainability in addition to profitability, which can help efforts at the regional/national level to shift business models to more sustainable pathways. The private sector should also have a well-defined purpose for the public benefit in their goal.2362382402412432442452462482495. How do we ensure that investable opportunities provide ambitious SDG impact? A. One of the challenges to which the participants referred the most was about science based and certificated metrics. Currently, it is very difficult to use common metrics to measure progress and some contributions of individual projects to common goals, which makes not possible their use at a high level. The ideal state that was mentioned included climate adaptation/resilience risk analysis into ESG approaches and financial risk approaches. One of the examples to reach this ideal state was the KPI directory for the sustainable land-use finance done by UNEP, this to exemplify how indicators can be harmonized and how to start using some metrics that could be applied to investment. Another intervention was about the importance of creating an interdisciplinary cross-cutting multi ministry approach, in order to get better metrics (what is wanted to be achieved), but also a better joint work between ministries from different countries, since currently, their work is quite fragmented. B. Also, a need for simplification to finance in the agricultural sector was one challenge that participants mentioned: many organizations do not want to invest in the sector as it is not only complicated and fragmented but also has many risks. I.e. less legal costs, standard GHG’s, biodiversity matrixes, etc. Also, make a split between blended finance and off-takers blended finance., working towards blended finance 2.0, whilst also addressing securitsation. Also, it was mentioned that sharing portfolio performance data across financial, social and environmental outcomes in emerging markets, can provide a benchmark for investors on real investment opportunities and risks. Some climate policy initiatives were also mentioned, as well as the global innovation Lab for climate finance, which seeks to develop blended finance for mitigation and adaptation. This example was highlighted as an effective way to know what type of work could be better. In this case, for example, some models have been shown as useful to bring some capital market players into investment in agriculture. The ideal state would be to coordinate with industry/national advisory boards to develop and adopt generally-accepted climate/natural capital accounting and valuation methodologies; climate-related financial risk disclosures. C. Furthermore, regarding implementation and real impact on the ground, the importance of mobilizing different stakeholders according to the sectors (including governments, financial institutions and investors) and value chains was expressed, so that, common goals can be achieved through joint work. Technical assistance needs to be done local and on the ground, in cooperation with local financial institutions. This comes close to the importance of political coherence to which several referred. Through this, it will be possible not only to reach farmers with solutions that adapt to their needs but also to be able to project positive impacts on communities in a more concrete way. D. Tapping into communities, participants talked about the importance of considering the needs of the communities with which the work is done. For example, in Africa, one of the participants stated that there is still no success story that can be replicated, and yet there are still many barriers to project implementation such as lack of technical knowledge from farmers. For this reason, it was suggested to develop joint efforts to create a success story in Africa that becomes a role model and continues to advance and scale regional and globally.236238240243244245248249A. The big issue with Blended Finance is that the large asset owners are not fully involved and do not have their investment policy in place to invest in such BF schemes. Agri - Food BF scheme requires long term illiquid investments which are not aligned with their liquidity ratio. We do need to involve institutional investors at the creation of the BF structure to integrate their constraints are still missing the large financial asset owners… with new regulations, banks will have more difficulties to finance long tenor projects, especially with a high transition costs. Blended finance is merely a transitional “product”; it needs to exit as an asset that can be traded between asset owners. Some companies are developing 'fund-of-fund' structures as well as 'liquidity guarantees' to crowd in institutional investor capital. Perhaps these can be among a suite of solutions that taps into sources that remain as of yet difficult to reach B. We do need to create platform for Blended structures, not only finance, where we can mutualize costs, data, technical assistance, promoting alternative models than the existing supply chains. This can include sharing TA around metrics. C. Replicating deals proves to be complicated. At farm level: we are working towards standardized loan products for our rural clients, that facilitate the transformation of their production method, while using risk sharing with AGRi3 as impact investor. D. As Loan products need to be tailor made to gather for smallholder farmers, market, credit access are key. As such, maybe technology will definitely help to reduce (monitoring, execution) costs (geo data, etc). Technology will also be a key driver for sustainable efficient food production. Connecting final consumer to farmer using tech could double the profit of farmer.237No areas of divergence.

2021-06-01 06:32:23204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/11199/203

0834100031250642222323313262411514

Participants were invited to register via a survey, capturing the data required by UN FSS. At the end of the survey the Principles of Engagement statement was listed in full. All participants were asked whether they agreed to abide by the PoE, and every participant replied Yes. At the beginning of the dialogue, the curator also reiterated the PoE verbally, as well as with a slide in his presentation. Prior to entering the dialogue, inclusivity, respect, kindness and a celebration of diversity was also reiterated. Our facilitators all completed the UN FSS dialogue facilitating training, and were briefed prior to the dialogue, regarding the PoE.Act with urgency: Prior to the dialogue, a global survey was conducted with participants responding from over 50 countries. The nature of the survey was based on the urgency of need, of food systems transformation. Respondents were asked specifically what are the top practical actions chefs and cooks can take now, to accelerate food systems transformation. The dialogue was a follow-up conversation, to enable survey participants to continue the conversation in-person. Commit to the Summit: The Chefs' Manifesto are fully committed to supporting the UN FSS, as is reflected across the breadth of their advocacy work throughout 2021. Be respectful: Participants from all over the world were invited to attend, with no discrimination occurring. All participants were encouraged to contribute via the facilitated dialogue, given full access to a copy of the chat, slide presentation and follow-up events. Recognise complexity: This was acknowledged by the curator and several of the facilitators. Food systems transformation is complex, yet that is no reason not to act. Participants were encouraged to place in the chat how they could act immediately, with 1 action, starting today. Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity: Participants were invited from right across the food industry sector, from scientists, academics, fine-dining chefs, farmers, and school chefs. No-one who wanted to attend was turned away, as everyone had something to contribute. Complement the work of others: The Chefs' Manifesto believes strongly in working complementarily with the entire sector. We aim to catalyse, convene and curate spaces where partners can come together. Partner networks for this dialogue included: WorldChefs, Le Cordon Bleu London, Chef Ann Foundation, Good Food Fund China, James Beard Foundation, Social Gastronomy and Chefs 4 the Planet. Build trust: The Chefs' Manifesto were completely transparent on the dialogue rules, processes and practices.Ensure you invite a broad range of perhaps ordinarily considered 'unusual actors', as their contributions are invaluable.

Yes

234238239240241242243244247248249251As agents of change, and to drive action, chefs need to come together in one collective, connected voice. The Chefs’ Manifesto network has taken a leading role to further focus and narrow the SDG roadmap for chefs, as well as bridging and connecting across chef networks. This has been motivated by the UN Food Systems Summit, and the urgent need to generate actions to be able to achieve the SDGs by 2030. Through conducting a survey prior to the dialogues, the aim was to learn from participants, what the top priorities are for 2021 and the Decade of Action, the results of which will inform the creation of a ‘Chefs’ Pledge’. This Pledge will be a commitment to key practical priorities that can have the greatest impact to enact change. It will aim to create collective momentum to rally greater attention and engagement of chef food systems champions, mobilising them even further as agents of change, at key global events, and especially at the upcoming UN Food Systems Summit. The survey was built from the 8 Thematic Areas in the Chefs' Manifesto, asking participants to rank what they believe will enact the greatest change to food systems transformation. Participants from over 50 countries contributed responses, the results of which can be found here: https://sdg2advocacyhub.org/chefs-manifesto/actions/chefs-pledge-results-are The 8 top actions voted globally were: 1. Get to know your ingredients: How are they grown, reared or sourced? Choose ingredients with the lowest impact on the environment. 2. Lead by example: Maintain the rich diversity of the world’s natural larder by using different varieties of plants, grains and proteins. Champion ‘wild’ variants and avoid monoculture. 3. Get to know your ingredients: Who grows, harvests, sources and packages them? How do they get to you? Investigate the journey from farm to fork. Choose ingredients with as few intermediaries as possible between you and the farmer. 4. Lead by example: through separating, monitoring and setting targets to reduce food waste. 5. Use your purchasing power: Buy locally produced foods in season. Avoid air-freighted foods. 6. Lead by example: Make vegetables, beans and pulses the centre of your dishes. 7. Be a community food champion: Showcase best practise on food safety, allergens and nutrition in your kitchens and through your menus 8. Be a community food champion: Support initiatives that provide access to nutritious meals in your communities - whether that be a soup kitchen, food bank or community garden project. From this survey, participants were invited to attend independent dialogues. The key topic was 'The top practical actions chef can take to accelerate food systems transformation', guided by the 8 top actions voted by survey participants. These 8 practical actions connect across all 5 of the Action Tracks, whilst ultimately coming back to a desire to ensure there is Good Food for All.235238239240241242244247248Core findings: The need for scientifically-current, consistent, ground-breaking education for current and future chefs/cooks, was a recurring theme of this dialogue. In particular, it was highlighted that education for the following was urgent and critical: Action1 - Ingredients grown with respect for the earth its oceans - Chefs need to engage and learn from farmers, across the globe farmers work with different crops in different climates. Chefs need to understand how sustainability and farming can work together; how food choices impact the environment and our carbon footprint. The effects of our food on the planet. Action 4 - Value Natural resources and reduce waste - specifically to tackle food waste. Action 5 - Celebration of local and seasonal food - Educating home cooks and other chefs about food processing as a way to preserve and keep the nutrition of ingredients; de-bunking myths that 'foreign' food is better. Action 7 - Education on food safety and healthy diets: making plants the star of the show and being creative in how we showcase a better diet to our customers . Taking this one step further, was the need for food systems advocate aware chefs, to incorporate into their work and time the role of an EDUCATOR. Chefs must focus on creating strategies to deliver key information to their clients/customers in a way that suits their local reality, as this may vary from a small village in Kazakhstan to a huge hotel chain in the UK. No matter what a chefs circumstance, it was agreed that they all have a role to play to contextual the urgent message of fixing failed food systems, by striving to change: how consumers make choices about food (from sourcing, buying and variety); knowing where our food comes from (protecting livelihoods); how it impacts both people and planet; to advocating for all people to have access to affordable, good food. The other main finding coming from all of the break-out rooms, was that we must act now. Time is critical and a cohesive, collective effort is needed to ensure food systems transformation is accelerated.236238239240241242243244245246248249Question 1: What actions (by chefs) in the next 3 years do you believe will have the greatest impact at a macro (global) level? A) For chefs to investigate and know intimately the journey of their ingredients: Who grows, harvests, sources and packages them? How do they get to farm to fork. Choose ingredients with as few intermediaries as possible between you and the farmer. Depending on the geography of the participant, the issues faced were different. For the European countries there are significant weather challenges, as it is impossible to grow food in the winter season where they have to rely more on preserved food. Whilst in Ghana, for example, they can grow food all year around. The challenge highlighted here was the tendency by local chefs finding it more prestigious to use foreign ingredients. Chefs can take the following actions to enable they know where their ingredients come from: use their purchasing power - buy only locally produced foods in season. Avoid air-freighted foods. Challenges associated with this included: how big your restaurant size or community is, to be able influence what local farmers grow. In Austria for example one chef participant shared how in the region where he lives they pay more attention to their local community and they are conscious of how they grow their food In West Africa, however, it was shared that demand is high for rice, but only if it imported from Asia. Consumer demand drives a lot of what products are imported. Ways actions could be assessed: - Evidence of sourcing patterns across food chains showing a reduced carbon footprint - Higher demand for locally sourced ingredients - Policy change from governments on how far food is allowed to travel before it is not allowed or higher taxes on goods implemented, if they travel over a certain distance - Menus changing in restaurants according to the seasons - Consumer demand increased on local produce, decreased on off-season, foreign produce B) Action urgently needed involving education on multiple levels: 1. Chefs - training the next generation of chefs that not only includes cooking but also regarding the impact on the environment and carbon footprint. The effects of our food choices on the planet. 2. Chefs engaging and learning from farmers, across the globe farmers work with different crops in different climates. Chefs need to understand how sustainability and farming can work together 3. Chefs un-learning – rethinking what they have done in the past and how to make it better. It was discussed how generations before us had more of a connection to food, how we have forgotten this and in fact need to also look back in history to find better ways for the future 4. Chefs changing their menus – making plants the star of the show and being creative in how we showcase a better diet to our customers. Ways actions could be assessed by: 1. Positive changes in consumer behaviour. 2. Seeing global poverty numbers falling 3. Corporations – success can be measured by seeing a change in food trends within supermarkets etc to more sustainable, better ingredients 4. Evidenced also through a marked, global shift in the way chefs approach cooking in their restaurants and cooking: from using their purchasing power right through to menu curation and consumer education. C) Actions urgently needed include the promotion of more plant based diets. ● Educating consumers, chefs, farmers, retailers and everyone who is a key driver of food systems around promoting a more plant based diet and sustainable living. ● Make plant-based chefs the stars and the dishes aspirational. ● Chef schools must include plant based dishes as an integral part of their curriculum, where these dishes take centre stage. D) Urgent action required to reduce food-waste and value natural resources ● Educating home cooks and other chefs about food processing as a way to preserve and keep the nutrition of ingredients, and also to tackle food waste. Ways progress could be assessed: - Legislation on food waste, recycling and sustainable living - Sustainable living standard policies237238239240241242244245246249Participants held varied yet largely cohesive ideas throughout this dialogue. However, the main areas of divergence occurred when discussing: financial interests vs sustainability - sustainability but at what cost? 'If I can't make payroll I need to cut corners somewhere'; old habits vs new ideas and philosophies; lack of vision and flexibility within traditional culinary institutions who haven't introduced sustainability best practice education; contextual barriers; and lack of education. Other points that came out requiring further discussion were: 1. Chefs struggle with a consistent supply of biodiverse plant ingredients, due to lack of demand. Chefs need to create the demand for the sourcing/ growing of these diverse earth friendly ingredients. Farmers will make sure there is consistent supply if there is demand and they are able to earn a livelihood. 2. Customers don’t want to change their eating habits, most chefs struggle to convince customers to try a plant-based or a biodiverse dish. 3. Consumers need to know and be reminded of what is happening. What needs to be done. What are the options to contribute, to consume, to act (they are many) and also understand that the winning game must be built, together. 4. That it is a process. It is not all or nothing 'in practice' at once. There is the adaptation process which will require flexibility. However, it must start with a clear vision and goals, admitting the factual situation we are in and committing to contribute to the shift. It is clear that the planet, nations and the food system itself needs to change before it goes into a collapse and suffering in the world will increase for all. 5. The system is unequal and unfair. Not everyone has access to safe and affordable food that is nutritious and of their choosing. With enough food to feed the entire planet multiple times over, this is abhorrent. There must be policy change. There must be change in our consumption patterns that is legislated from the top down. There must be shifts in farming practices, especially at the big ag level. Financial incentives need to be directed towards actions that adhere to climate and people-friendly practice, rather than subsidising certain crops.

2021-06-01 10:10:28205Stage 3https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/21143/186

159972144818112138315135112111521771102

The event as a part of the National Dialogue process, serves to the achievement of the principles of engagement: Act with Urgency, Commit to the Summit, Be Respectful, Recognize Complexity, Embrace Multi Stakeholder Inclusivity, Complement the Work of Others, and Build Trust. Republic of Turkey, with the participatory approach, contributes to the Summit dialogues at local, national and global scales, which are held to contribute to the achievement of the United Nations (UN) 2030 Agenda and Sustainable Development Goals. So, the problematic-intervention areas, solution suggestions and actionrecommendations were identified separately with the diffent key stakeholders' perspective which are composed of academia, public, some NGOs and others among the most important actors of the food systems through an online survey conducted by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Please note that for the number of partcipants from each spesifc sector selected most appropriate option, since some participants are represented in one more than sector. Also small, medium and large farmers was represented by cooperatives as NGOs with the highest number of members witihin the scope of survey. Please see below for details of specific aspects of the Principles.At the first stage, a fully-fledged dialogue roadmap for Turkey were prepared, and stakeholder analysis was made, with an aim to support transformation of the food systems through a more sustainable approach with the inclusion of respective stakeholders (with a gender sensitive and participatory approach) at regional, national and local levels, by taking into the account of the schedule determined by UN. Accordingly, on the one hand, the problematic-intervention areas, solution suggestions and action recommendations were received through online survey. Also another survey was conducted with Business Council for Sustainable Development Turkey and all outputs were analyzed. On the other hand, Turkey prepared Sustainable Food System Country Report-Turkey in English for COMCEC 34th Ministerial Meeting in 2019. In an effort to support national dialogues, the Turkish content of the Report has been updated with inputs from the ministerial departments and other related ministries and CSOs. Furthermore, nearly 80 focal points, which were regularly informed and consulted on the dialogues when necessary, were determined from the public sector and NGOs. Moreover, some activities are planned with the aim of (i)Raising public awareness on sustainable food systems (ii)Ensuring better inclusivity of stakeholders of food sector value chain actors (i.e. primary producers, processors, marketers, food service companies, retailers) and especially those left behind and/or having the risk of being left behind (i.e. women, youngsters, small farmer holders, migrant workers etc.) (iii)Complementing/validating the results of the existing stakeholder analysis and improve the quality and content of the existing baseline report for public consultations on national sustainable and resilient food systems. Over 1300 stakeholders, the members of the 3rd Agriculture and Forestry Council was informed about the Summit via e-mail and requested them to fill out online survey other than those of public sector. Therefore, national dialogue process reflects specific aspects of the Principles.Raising of awareness on sustainable food system is very important to get more valuable information and opinion from the stakeholders, due to the complexity of the sustainable food systems. Stakeholders whom receive information on this issue should have at least basic information about what sustainable food system concept means and why there is a need for transforming and improving food systems and which benefits would be provided with transformation of food systems. Also, it would be beneficial to make stakeholder analysis and involve all relevant actors as a part of sustainable food systems in the dialogue process at different levels (informing, consulting, implementing etc.) to identify realistic problematic areas, most relevant solutions and implementable actions with the necessary ownership. Also reaching new innovative solutions to improve and transform sustainable food systems and synthesizing with current studies and efforts are another aspect that it should be considered on it.

NoImplemented method to take stakeholders' opinion about the problematic areas, solution and action recommendations conforms to the Summit Dialogue Method indicated in the Convenors Reference Manual, except that the method used is online survey when obtained outcomes are considered. Online survey provided some advantege for taking all opinions and recommendations from all stakeholders who responded the questions by allowing them to express their opinions freely and fully without feeling themselves under pressure and any timing limitation. Also thanks to simple open ended questions, enhanced information under five action tracks could be taken from the stakeholders in a swift way. Divergence and convergence areas could be detected without causing any conflict interest issues. All voices who replied survey questions were fully heard.

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Major focus of the dialogue was receiving the opinions and ideas of the different key actors involved in food system on the most problematic areas, solution and concreate action recommendations under five action tracks to transform and improve food systems towards achievement of Sustainable Development Goals by 2030 with their perspectives. Accordingly, main intervention, intervention and action areas at the different level of locations (district, province, region and Turkey) has been determined on the base of the results of online survey under five action tracks. The following simple open-ended questions were questioned in the survey form to the stakeholders. These basically are, - For which action track are you filling out this form? - Under action track you have chosen please indicate your problem as a brief text - Under action track you have chosen, please define the problem. - Please explain solution recommendations for the problem you have defined. - According to solutions you have explained, please suggest max 3 concreate actions Stakeholders were requested to fill out this form for maximum three problems, three solutions and actions. This survey was sent to public and private sector institutions via official letter and over 1300 representatives (composed of members of 3rd Agriculture and Forestry Council of Turkey), the key actors involved in food systems via e-mail. As a result of online survey conducted between Feb 26 and April 8, 2021 by Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, the total number of 258 responses were received from the stakeholders from public and private sector, science and academy, non-governmental organizations etc. for the problems, solutions and action recommendations for different locations and 520 problems and over 1000 solutions and concreate action recommendations were received for five action tracks. National Dialogue Convenor gave official instruction (via official letter) to 81 Provincial Agriculture and Forestry Directorates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry to fill out one consolidated form by receiving opinions from all local actors including Development Agencies, farmers, businesses in agri-food sector, disadvantageous groups, academia, development agencies, agricultural unions and cooperatives, agricultural chambers so on. Furthermore, Turkey preserve its commitment to perform actions and main actions as a result of 3rd Agriculture and Forestry Council in line with the Summit. In this context, 3rd Agriculture and Forestry Council was established for a 'Common Sense' on the future of agriculture and forestry and determine a road map on agriculture and forestry including food security and nutrition in 2019. 21 working group was established, which cover all elements of sustainable food system and more than 30K ideas was gathered from all local and central actors such as stakeholders including academia, public and private sectors, citizens, farmers, SMEs etc. As a result of the Council, Final Declaration (60 main points) with the concreate commitments has been announced to the public by President Recep Tayyip ERDOĞAN and in 2020, 46 main actions and 324 sub-actions was determined to perform by 2024. The Council will be renewed in 2024 and new actions and sub-action will be renewed with broad key actors in the food system. Departments of Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry are responsible for fully implementing these actions and sub actions and the results of actions and sub-actions has been monitored regularly by Director General, Deputy Minister and Minister since 2020. Data is being entered into an ICT system at one each three months of period. All working groups reports, goals, strategies and action and other documents (in Turkish other than some English information) can be accessed via the official website of the Council, http://www.tarimormansurasi.gov.tr/235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251On the one hand, Turkey preserve its commitment to perform actions and main actions as a result of 3rd Agriculture and Forestry Council in line with the Summit. 46 main actions and 324 sub-actions (determined in starting period in 2020) will be carried out by 2024. 46 main actions planned to be implemented by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry takes place in the presentation attached to this official feedback report. On the other hand, as a result of the analysis of survey results, 520 problems were determined and among these problems, the highest number of problems were identified under Action Track 3 (35.3 % of count of the grand total). It was followed by action track 1 (28.08%), action track 2 (17.69%), action track 4 (15.77%) and action track 5 (2.69%), respectively according to distribution of ATs on the basis of problems. The main intervention areas were determined under five action tracks on the basis of the problems identified by the stakeholders. The most important main intervention areas according to action tracks are - Better Protection and Sustainable Use of Environment and Natural Resources (under Action Track 3) - EncouragingTransition to Sustainable Consumption and Prevention of Food Loss and Waste (under Action Track 2) - Sustainable Food Security (under Action Track 1) - Better Public Health and Food Safety (under Action Track 1) - More Inclusive Sustainable Food Systems and Poverty Alleviation (under Action Track 4) - Increasing the Resilience of Sustainable Food Systems Against Food Crises (Under Action Track 5) However, 'Increasing the Resilience of Sustainable Food Systems Against Food Crises' under action track 5 was remarkably recognized as one of the main intervention areas also requiring international intervention and cooperation especially for overcoming hunger and malnutrition problems of the other countries out of Turkey by the national stakeholders. Furthermore, problems were determined on the basis of at different location levels. Accordingly, 64.4% of the total problems were determined at the provincial level and 32.2% of the total problems were identified throughout Turkey. The rest of the problems were identified for district and regional level. Regional level covers many provinces of Turkey. 81 provinces of Turkey were represented thanks to Survey. Moreover intervention areas under main intervention areas were determined as a result of the analysis of the survey results. As per three most defined intervention areas (Intervention areas are also given in order), these are AT3 - Protection and Sustainable Use of Environment and Natural Resources (33.46%) - Climate Change - Scarcity and Efficient Use of Water Resources - Sustainable Use of Natural Resources AT2 - Transition to Sustainable Consumption and Prevention of Food Loss and Waste (15.58%) - Food Loss and Waste - Food Waste (Separately) - Food Loss (Separately) AT1-Food Security (14.23%) - Ensuring Food Security and Access to Safe, Healthy and Nutritious Food - Healthy, Balanced and Adequate Nutrition - Waste Management, Disposal and Reuse and Recycling Related to Nutrition and Nutritional Ingredients AT1-Public Health and Food Safety (11.92%) Production of Safe, Healthy and Nutritious Food Inspections and Controls Regarding Ensuring Public Health and Food Safety Food Safety Problems-Other AT4-Inclusive Sustainable Food Systems and Poverty Alleviation (11.54%) - Rural to Urban Migration - Improving Fair Livelihoods - Improvement of Income Distribution for the Poor AT 5 (2,69%) - Increasing the Resillence of Sustainable Food Systems Against Food Crises - Measures Against Food Crises due to Conflict, Natural Disaster, Climate - Change, Outbreaks and Pandemics - Ensuring Food Security and Access to Safe, Healthy and Nutritious Food - Associated with Food Crises - Sustainability Problem in Agricultural Production due to Climate Change In order to achieve of improvement of and transforming food systems under five Action Tracks, there must be a change in food supply and food value chain. In this respect, it is necessary to change the behavior of the farmers, producers and other key actors operating in food systems. In particular farmers and producers' behavior change can be achieved through reshaping agricultural support mechanisms and farmer and producer training on relevant key elements of the sustainable food systems not only national level but also international level. Detailed report was prepared with the national dialouges survey results including detailed action recommended by the stakeholders along with the updated Sustainable Food System Country Report in Turkish and shared these reports with the relevant staff of FAO-SEC Office. Details takes place in the survey report (in Turkish) that will be translated into English in upcoming period. Some issues and actions recommended by stakeholders are cross-cutting issue and sometimes same actions were proposed under different topics to solve the problems defined.236241242243244245246247248249251AT5 - Increasing the Resilience of Sustainable Food Systems Against Food Crises (recommended by the stakeholders) on the national and international scales. Some actions recommended by the stakeholders are following, - Taking more active role in the relevant studies of the international organizations - Establishment of global and national food systems, building up the capacity of national and global planning and stocking capacity - Development of standards and strengthtening cooperation between the countries - Improvement of insurance system supported by State Agencies and of necessary insfrastructure (building up meteorological aspects, early warning systems and registration in agriculture) - Improvement of supply management system on agricultural inputs, especially of seed management system - Increasing resiliance of small holders against food crises - Determination of the risks for seed supply taking into account of impact of COVID – 19 on food security and agriculture sector, development and registration of local seed varieties and conserving gene resources - Defining new procedures at the public and enterprise level to ensure food security against food crises, affected by some challenges such as conflicts, outbreaks and disasters, climate change, and improvement of the procedures traceability. - Encouraging use of R&D, innovation and technology etc. AT4-- More Inclusive Sustainable Food Systems and Poverty Alleviation (Part 1) Some actions recommended for Rural to Urban Migration are below, - Improvement of living conditions in the rural areas (health, increasing access to education, transportation, internet, social space infrastructure etc.) - Raising awareness about the importance of sustainable production starting from school age - Increasing and improving the income level from production - Increasing supports that can attract young population to rural areas, continuation of existing ones, defining on-site employment measures - Reducing production costs through cooperative organizations - Continuing the land consolidation activities - Continuing implementation support mechanism for the development of agricultural mechanization, on-site processing, packaging and marketing of products, tool, machine etc. - Prevention of land fragmentation - Continuing implementation support mechanisms for family farms/smallholders  - Continuing implementation of special support mechanisms for young farmers, land support, training young farmers on smart agriculture - Conservation of traditional production methods for local products - Providing a strong structure and superior organization to the cooperatives, encouraging especially the young people to become a member of cooperatives. - Implementation of some practices such as contractual agriculture providing purchasing guarantee for products produced in rural areas. Some actions recommended for 'Improvement of Income Distribution for the Poor' are below, - Sustainable development and improvement of income sources for poor people - Creating decent job opportunities to eradicate poverty and implementation measures on increasing the income level for rural areas. - Expanding co-operatives - Diversifying and increasing job opportunities, especially in rural areas, sustainable development and improvement of income sources for poor people, developing policies with national and international cooperation for income generation conditions that guarantee minimum living conditions, especially for small family businesses. - Strengthening social policies for healthy and balanced nutrition for the unemployed and the poor, with an approach that takes into account disadvantaged groups such as women, children and pregnant women. - Development of land support especially for young farmers and smallholders/family farms - Taking some measures for preventing stockpiling due to food speculations on the crisis times - Taking measures for better balanced and fair income distribution by establishing optimum agricultural business planning and production patterns at local, national and international scales. - Development of e-commerce applications in order to market local products236239243244245246248249AT2 Transition to Sustainable Consumption and Prevention of Food Loss and Waste (FLW) (Part 1) Turkey has brought the agenda of food security, FLW issues for the last decade. In Turkey, public sector, especially Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry currently plays a pioneering role in reducing, preventing and managing FLW at the national and international level, even though some private companies, Civil Society Organizations take over active role in reducing food loss and waste including food banking activities at the local and regional level in Turkey. In this context, ‘Technical Platform on the Measurement and Reduction of Food Loss and Waste’, as a concrete output of Turkey’s G20 Presidency, was established in the FAO Headquarters by FAO and IFPRI in 2015 with great efforts of Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Furthermore, Republic of Turkey launched the Campaign for preventing Bread Waste at the national level in order to raise awareness on prevention of bread waste and prevent bread waste at the consumption stage as well as promoting healthy bread consumption in 2013. Thanks to the Campaign conducted by Turkish Grain Board of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, 384 million loaves of bread were saved in 2013, corresponded to the total amount of USD 1,3 billion nearly (including USD 136 million for bread saved from being thrown away and USD 1,1 billion decrease in bread consumption). In 2014, the UN FAO considered the Campaign for Preventing Bread Waste as the most comprehensive practice carried out through a public institution and declared it as an example of good practice around the world for reducing food loss and waste. Sub Commission of Investigation Researching and Dissemination of Food Banking Practice established within the Petition Commission of Grand National Assembly of Republic of Turkey prepared and publicized a report on this issue and identified some duties and brilliant recommendations for the relevant public bodies in 2018. However, the first and most comprehensive initiative which covers all sectors and all food products and also handle food banking practices for reducing food loss and waste by the Republic of Turkey is the Save Your Food Campaign. In May 2020, Turkey launched Save Your Food Campaign in cooperation with FAO. The aims of the campaign are: -to combat against food losses and waste both at national and international level -to raise public awareness on food losses and waste -to create a role-model by extending good practices on food losses and waste implemented in the world, in Turkey and also other countries. to Support national Zero Waste Project To this end, the Ministry and FAO have organized a series of events with the involvement and assistance of relevant stakeholders to contribute to the planning and implementation of activities to be realized within the scope of the campaign. Turkey, in cooperation with all countries and relevant stakeholders, aims to intensify efforts at regional, national and international levels, to reduce and prevent food loss and waste. Within the campaign, 'Turkey’s National Strategy Document On Prevention, Reduction and Monitoring of Food Loss and Waste and Its Actıon Plan' was prepared. The most important objective of the National Strategy Document is to ensure that action is taken to prevent food loss and waste through the adoption of concrete solutions drawing on the advice of concerned stakeholders and local perspectives. The following points are summarized in the National Strategy Document and Action Plan. -Raise awareness of the causes of food loss and waste, and promote solutions and training on prevention and reduction -All actors of the food supply chain, including households, to measure, monitor and evaluate food loss and waste -Build capacity among different actors in the food chain to prevent, reduce and manage food loss and waste, and change consumer behavior. -Increase efficiency along the entire food supply chain to avoid discarding safe and nutritious products. to be continued....236239241243244245246247248249250251AT2 Transition to Sustainable Consumption and Prevention of Food Loss and Waste (FLW) (Part 2) - Optimize the size, design and materials of packaging in order to enable actors across the food chain to market and consume the entire edible part of any product. - Prevent product loss by applying cold chain practices along food supply chains. - Reduce food waste in food services such as restaurants, caterers and cafeterias. - Reduce food waste at retail level by improving inventory management and tracking the shelf life of products. - Prevent and reduce food waste at household level by improving food literacy for all age groups. - Improve, enhance and monitor safe and nutritious food recovery and redistribution systems for direct human consumption - Converting former foodstuffs into animal feed, without competing with safe and nutritious food recovery and redistribution for direct human consumption - Collect organic waste for composting facilities, without competing with safe and nutritious food recovery and redistribution for direct human consumption - Energy recovery from organic food waste, without competing with safe and nutritious food recovery and redistribution for direct human consumption You can access detailed information about Campaign on the link of https://www.gidanikoru.com/ ; available in English Some recommendations made by stakeholders to validate what was defined in the Action Plan are: - Measuring and monitoring food loss and waste at regular intervals by determining appropriate methodologies - Expanding licensed warehousing practices, increasing the number of silos and cold storage warehouses in the local areas within the scope of needs and capacity analysis - Continuing the awareness-raising activities of consumers in order to prevent food waste - Reducing the weight of the products produced and/or diversifying the weights, producing the bread in small sizes in order to prevent the waste of bread, raising the awareness of the consumers, re-evaluating the stale bread as human food - Increasing the number of food banks and bringing excess food to those in need through the food bank - Extending waste collection and evaluation and processing facilities through municipalities - Carrying out studies in an integrated manner with the activities for the national zero waste project implemented by Ministry of Environment and Urban Planning etc. AT-4 More Inclusive Sustainable Food Systems and Poverty Alleviation - Improving Fair Livelihoods (Part 2) - Promotion and improvement marketing of local products - More inclusion of local products in the scope of geographical indication - Improving the marketing infrastructure of agricultural products, developing e-commerce applications and dissemination of contractual agriculture applications in the marketing of products - Carrying out activities to encourage the establishment and development of cooperatives in rural areas with high cooperatives potential; so that cooperatives can carry out their commercial activities more effectively, providing trainings in some fields such as entrepreneurship, marketing, branding, social media use and e-commerce, organizing informative and promotional meetings on cooperatives - Encouraging impmentation of production and employment projects in order to increase the entrepreneurial capabilities of women's cooperatives and to enable them to take place in the economy as a good key actors - Supporting farmers engaged in production and sales through cooperatives. Providing support for the establishment of cooperatives - More inclusive approach for disadvantegeous people (poor farmers, women, youth etc) to take part in agricultural and food production, also taking into account their socio-economic status - Identification and dissemination of alternative products - Diversification of economic activities and increasing employment opportunitie in rural areas - Optimum utilization of natural resources - Improvement of price monitoring mechanisms - Adoption and implementation of bio-economy and circular economy approaches. - Support for income diversifying activities in the rural area - Improving supply chain for locally produced products etc.236240243244245246248249250AT-3 Better Protection and Sustainable Use of Environment and Natural Resources (under Action Track 3) (Part 1)-Climate Change In recent years, rapid urbanization and industrial pressure triggered by migration from rural to urban areas, excessive use of natural resources due to rapid population growth and expansion of agricultural areas and tourism activities, global warming and many factors causes to climate change problems. Furthermore, emissions in industrial areas cause air pollution and various environmental problems. Climate change problem is closely related to the scarcity of water resources and efficient use of water drought problems. Water use in irrigation reaches to 74% in Turkey. Agricultural production and natural resources due to climate change are affected negatively in terms of reduction of production amount, yield and quality of agricultural production, reduction of fishery products, decrease in biodiversity, erosion, land and ecosystem degredation etc. Some action recommendations are below; - Conducting research and modeling studies on the short, medium and long term effects of climate change on food supply, on the basis of the factors that trigger climate change. Accordingly current action plans should be reconsidered - Strengthening national and global cooperation and taking more role of CSOs in combating against climate change - In addition to existing agricultural products (product patterns) suitable for climate conditions, determining different alternative agricultural products, optimum product patterns and farm systems, developing alternative food production models suitable together with marketing, storage infrastructure and extension studies, by taking into consideration of changing climatic conditions. - Development of biodegradable and degradable products (R&D) in nature (such as food packaging materials and other ones) - Efficient use of water resources and sustainable use of natural resources -Reducing anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, balanced use of consumer goods that trigger climate change - Balanced use of agricultural inputs such as fertilizer, pesticides, water in agricultural production - Increasing the sustainability index of organic agriculture, good agricultural practices and geographically indicated products and disseminating these practices - With respect to R&D-based topics for Combating Climate Change and Drought, resistant variety development, conservation of biodiversity, dissemination of smart farming practices and use of satellite technologies, developing plants with high water use efficiency, breeding of animal breeds with high adaptation to climate change, improving soil health, dissemination of protective tillage etc. - Considering Technology-Agriculture, Forestry, Fishery and Aquaculture Products and Tourism optimization model - Dissemination of use of direct sowing machines - Continuing reclamation of pastures - Continuing development of basin-based inventory studies, development of local seed and seedling - Dissemination of integrated pest management - Preventing deforestation and protection of the statute of forest lands etc.236240243244245246248249250Better Protection and Sustainable Use of Environment and Natural Resources (under Action Track 3) (Part 2)-- Scarcity and Efficient Use of Water Resources Turkey has been experiencing water shortage recently and drought is one of the important risk for sustainable agriculture Surface irrigation method is mostly used and water is one of the most restrictive factors in agricultural production. The most important main causes of water scarcity in our region, as well as in the whole world, are the physical insufficiency of the amount of water for irrigation of all agricultural lands, the fact that water resources are far from all agricultural lands, and there are losses due to evaporation, etc. during transportation. Drainage, protection of soil and water resources in irrigated areas is of great importance. In the food industry, water is constantly used as an auxiliary in food processing, in food processing methods and basic processes (wetting, washing, rinsing, boiling, heating, pasteurization, freezing, cooling, steam production) and in cleaning and sanitation, causing sometimes water loss . Improper practices in agricultural production and aquaculturereduce and pollute water resources. Overuse of chemical fertilizers and pesticides used in agricultural production cause pollution of water sources, posing a danger to human health, especially in drinking water sources. Some action recommendations are below; - Continuing rehabilitation works of existing irrigation systems and continuing support for modern irrigation insfrastructure investments - Taking measures on preventing water loss and waste, raising awareness on optimum water use in target groups and finally at the community level - Dissemination of underground irrigation practices - Making Irrigation planning on the basin basis, dissemination of use of smart irrigation techniques, taking into account the product need, land and environmental conditions, meteorological data,  - Continue afforestation - Accelerating the works of converting open irrigation channels to closed system, thus minimizing the water loss that extends up to 75% in arid areas. - Encouraging use of renewable energy sources in agricultural production - Determining optimum plant patterns according to water resources and water constraints - Continuing to develop the monitoring and evaluation system of water pollution from agricultural production - Dissemination of modern management systems based on irrigation schedule - Development and dissemination of new systems for economical use of water resources, supporting R&D studies - Dissemination of biological and cultural control methods against plant diseases and pests - Dissemination of water storage projects - Keeping the water inflows and outflows to the lake in balance by controlling the water levels and amounts of the lakes etc.236240243244245246248249250Better Protection and Sustainable Use of Environment and Natural Resources (under Action Track 3) (Part 2)-- Sustainable Use of Natural Resources Erosion, salinization, acidification, chemical pollution, and soil degradation caused by land degradation, population growth, urban expansion and intensive cultivation cause the continuation of soil degradation. Misuse of soil and water resources causes deterioration of physical, chemical and biological structures of soils. Thus, sustainable soil fertility and production decreases together with some social problems. At the same time, it causes environmental problems that negatively affect natural resources, as well as product loss and input increase caused by factors such as excessive irrigation, unconscious chemical fertilizer and drug use. An ecosystem-based holistic management style that takes into account the unique structure of the soil should be supported. Capacity building studies on soil-friendly practices should be implemented. Soil degradation should be prevented and rehabilitation works should be carried out for degraded soils. Soil wealth, land resource potential of our country should be determined and land classification should be made in accordance with the country's plant production potential and geographical conditions. It is necessary to prevent the exploitation of natural stocks for raw materials used in aquaculture. Some action recommendations are below; - Encouraging agricultural production suitable for the climate and soil structure and properties of the agricultural lands - Encouraging the cultivation of low-water-use crops when available appropriate conditions to prevent increase in salinity in soils . - Protection of natural forest assets by applying afforestation works in a planned manner in order to increase forests. - Continuing make studies on determination the capacity of natural resources and studies on planning for the sustainable and need-based use of resources - Carrying out monitoring studies on the effects of climate change on water resources in terms of aquaculture in cooperation with the relevant institutions, conducting risk assessment and impact analysis studies, developing models for alternative species - Conversion of waste into energy in large enterprises and factories - Considering establishment and support of production stations for fauna. - Continuing R&D studies on and encouraging reduction of erosion, enrichment of soil organic matter content, prevention and mitigation of soil compaction, improvement of soil water management, prevention and reduction of soil salinization, prevention and reduction of soil pollution, - Preparation of land use plans that determine and systematically evaluate the soil and water potential of the lands in order to create different land use decisions in accordance with the principle of sustainability, and continue soil survey and mapping studies. - Ensuring effective coordination between organizations responsible for soil and water resources, - Continuing land use planning and production planning by making use of necessary data, preventing misuse, reducing excessive water use and preventing misuse lands and land degradation, mitigating the adverse effects of climate change and ensuring adaptation, technology development and harmonization. - Continuing to carry out planned urbanization practices - Recycling of wastewater - Treatment of waste water from endocrine disrupting chemicals, protection of agricultural lands etc.236238244245246247248249251Sustainable Food Security (Under Action Track 1) (Part 1) - Ensuring Food Security and Access to Safe, Healthy and Nutritious Food Fluctuations in food prices; increasing population and demand for food; changing consumption habits; conflicts and economic fluctuations around the world; increases in agricultural input prices; climate change and its effects on agricultural production; limited natural resources; agricultural production and efficiency of natural resources affected by land degradation; water scarcity; rapid urbanization and abandonment of rural areas; the necessity of improving logistics infrastructure; and the recent effects of COVID-19 on food supply affect agricultural production and food security on a national and global scale. In this direction, food systems should be addressed in a sustainable way with a holistic and coordinated approach in order to solve today's problems and achieve the United Nations (UN) 2030 Agenda Sustainable Development Goals. Sustainable food systems could serve as a useful tool to ensure food security and nutrition for all while securing the economic, social and environmental well-being of future generations. Some recommendations made by stakeholders - Improving the food supply and value chain, ensuring a sustainable food supply and delivering it to the consumer at reasonable prices. - Preventing and trade off the increase in food prices and ensuring the continuity of access to healthy and nutritious food - Transition to the practice of introducing alternative fundamental foodstuffs for a healthy and balanced diet, instead of a uniform diet. - Reconsidering support models for the food producers - Reconsidering social supports for vulnerable groups to access healthy nutritious and safe food, developing food banking practices, identifying individuals with an more strong approach that takes children and women into account for emergency food aid. - Promoting sustainable agriculture and agricultural production - Ensuring food safety and preventing food loss and waste - Consideration of water constraint in production stages - Developing infrastructure and improving living conditions in rural areas for sustainable production - Supporting contractual production - Increasing food literacy and awareness about healthy food - Identification of strategic products and basic foodstuffs that are weighted in consumption, long-term production planning and stock management planning for these ones, and reconsidering regulating the market - Increasing the availability of records from production to consumption in order to ensure traceability - Development of e-commerce applications - Continuing school feeding practices and school food School Food Programme (aims at reducing salt, carbonhydrate, sugar oil consumptions for children in schools) - Strengthening coordination and cooperation between relevant institutions - Improvement of international aid mechanisms for people in need of urgent assistance - Dissemination of early warning systems - Development of e-commerce applications - Expanding urban agriculture practices - Continuing to support young farmer projects - Continuing to provide both economic and technical support to member countries by FAO, OIE and DGSANTE within the scope of combating zoonotic diseases. - Development of logistics infrastructure - Expanding the use of renewable energy sources to reduce input costs etc.236238245246247248249251Sustainable Food Security (Under Action Track 1) (Part 2) - Healthy, Balanced and Adequate Nutrition It is very important that especially vulnerable groups have access to nutritious-balanced food. Many studies investigating the relationship between nutrition and health have revealed that the risk of some chronic diseases increases as a result of inadequate and unbalanced nutrition. The main health problems related to malnutrition detected in studies conducted in Turkey are protein-energy malnutrition in children, anemia, rachitism, weakness and obesity seen in school-age children and youth, iodine deficiency diseases and vitamin deficiencies. Preventing diseases with consumed foods is much easier and cheaper than curing them. The traditional food in Turkey is bread and cereal products. Therefore, enrichment of wheat in terms of nutritional quality is of great importance. Agricultural policies should also include health when formulating. Organic food should be offered to the final consumer at affordable prices. In addition, increase in food literacy of people is very important. Some actions recommended by the stakeholders are below, - Expanding the production of legumes as an alternative protein source and taking more part in consumption at reasonable prices. - Promoting the production of bread products enriched with iron and vitamins according to health criteria - Enhancing vulnerable groups access to healthy and balanced food at reasonable prices and improvement and dissemination of food banking practices - Encrouraging vertical farming practices against climate change, where more crops are obtained by using 95% less water. - Increasing controls in foods in terms of nutritional components and industrial food additives - R&D studies on biofortification to increase the bioavability of foods and on reducing producer input costs in order to increase access to healthy and balanced food and taking some measures on reducing input costs, therefore reducing food prices. - Dissemination of local food culture and cuisine etc.236238244245246248249Sustainable Food Security (Under Action Track 1) (Part 3) - Waste Management, Disposal and Reuse and Recycling Related to Nutrition and Nutritional Ingredients The wastes of food industry may sometimes contain rich nutritional elements.Evaluating and reusing the wastes generated from the productionprocesses of food businesses, including the fruit and vegetable processing industry, will enable the addition of minerals essential for human nutrition to the diet and the production of additives with high antioxidant content, so that new foods that can help improve human nutrition can be produced. Some actions recommended by the stakeholders are below, - Raising awareness and trainings on food hygiene in target gorups - R&D studies on reusing food industry wastes - Development of safe waste collection systems - Increasing the consumption of traditional foods by changing consumer eating habits and maintaining a healthy food culture. - Obtaining reusable and recyclable products by processing wastes in accordance with food production standards. - Reintroducing the products obtained from wastes to food production through R&D and innovation studies etc.236238243244245246248249250- Better Public Health and Food Safety (under Action Track 1) (Part 1)- 'Production of Safe, Healthy and Nutritious Food' and 'Inspections and Controls Regarding Ensuring Public Health and Food Safety' Some actions recommended for Production of Safe, Healthy and Nutritious Food by the stakeholders are below, - Strengthening agricultural statistics and inventory studies, developing modeling, data mining and IT infrastructures for big data analysis and analysis, increasing human resources capacity, increasing the integration of databases - Reducing production costs developing R&D infrastructure in the production of reliable, healthy and nutritious food, and carrying out infrastructure and capacity building studies to reduce risks. - Dissemination of circular economy approach - Increasing the frequency of inspection and control activities( including pesticide residue monitoring), strengthening measures to reduce fraud and adulteration in food products - Training of all key actors involved in the food supply chain - Dissemination of food safety and quality management systems (HACCP, ISO 9000 and ISO 22000, BRC, Global GAP, GMP, GLP etc.) - Development of traceability infrastructure - Identification and dissemination of alternative products with high nutritional value - Adoption and dissemination of the One Health approach in ensuring food safety - Improving sustainability/sustainable agricultural production in production - Encouraging new modeling and digitalization in the Production of Reliable, Healthy and Nutritious Food - Carrying out R&D studies for products that do not contain additives and preservatives and promoting the production of these products. - Encouraging the production of nutrient-rich food for vulnerable groups such as children and pregnant women and providing it to the market at reasonable prices etc. Some actions recommended for Inspections and Controls Regarding Ensuring Public Health and Food Safety are below, - Increasing the number and qualifications of food inspectors and laboratories, strengthening its infrastructure, increasing financing opportunities and the analysis scope/diversity of the labs. within the bounds of possibility - Providing more the training of laboratory personnel on analysis, devices, tools and equipment and increasing their effectiveness - Conducting R&D studies to ensure that natural ones are used instead of use of food chemicals and dyes that will extend the shelf life of foods. - Encouraging and dissmination of use of integrated pest management methods - Increasing cooperation with stakeholder institutions in controls and inspections - Strengthening international cooperation on inspection, controls and analysis - Encouriging issuance of Phytosanitary Certificate to accompany plants, herbal products and other substances via electronic/verifiable systems (Plant passport in compliance with the relevant EU legislation) - Reviewing food safety control systems and increasing the frequency of inspections, making interdisciplinary holistic control - Carrying out studies to increase the number of accredited laboratories etc.237N/A

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/2021-UNFSS-TURKEY-1.pdfhttps://gidanikoru.com/http://www.tarimormansurasi.gov.tr/http://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/CB1074EN

2021-06-01 13:39:57204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/22134/119

5919328233621162233336310111312131116

The National Dialogue was initiated by F.A.L.C.O.N Association in collaboration with the University of Mauritius via the zoom platform which was facilitated by the SACAU team. Seven guiding factors were mobilised to make invitations to local agricultural stakeholders and these were: (1) Farmers Associations; (2) Youth; (3) Gender; (4) Blue economy ; (5) Trade, commerce & Finance; (6) Agroforestry; (7) Academia. F.A.L.C.O.N Association shared detailed information of the National Dialogue to the participants for them to acquire greater visibility of the organised summit. Phone calls, email conversations and Face- to- Face interactions consisted of the major sources of communication for creating awareness on the upcoming National Dialogue. The organising team followed the proposed Dialogue Format by the Reference Manual, which was inclusive of an opening session, small group discussions and a reflection session that included reporting from discussion groups. Mr Bamba Ibrahim, Country Director of IFAD & UN and Mr Ismael Sunga, CEO of SACAU were invited as guest speakers to provide background information on the UNFSS, emphasizing the principles of engagement. Absence of translators led to the usage of English language in the opening remarks for the comprehension of our international guests while the discussion and the reflection session were facilitated in Creole language to cater for fluid conversations among the participants.Since the National Dialogue was a multi-stakeholder engagement, cross-cutting perspectives on finance, innovation, gender fairness, blue economy, climate resilient pathways and conducive policies for the local food producers were raised discussed and common ideas were proposed. At the beginning of the dialogue itself, the urgency and commitment to the United Nations Food System Summit were reflected. The agricultural representatives were made to understand that there exists no silver bullet proof solution for an improved agrarian sector other than assembling all the farmers around the discussion table with policy makers to create a more enabling environment for the food producers. All the actors of the food value chain have to be accountable for their actions and need to come up with game changing ideas to build a resilient food system. Participants dedicated themselves with commitment to the set exercise as guided and facilitated by questions. Each group was enthusiastic about presenting how they have analysed there different priority areas in the food system, highlighting the urgent call for reforms and the need for players to commit to the transformation of the food system. The working groups demonstrated appreciation for the roles of farmers and that of other actors in the food system. They acknowledged the fact that they operate in a complex and dynamic environment and that they are part of a larger collection of people including other farmers, suppliers, traders, transporters and processors, each of whom has a consequential role to play in the value chain. Understanding the rational of the organised national dialogue, led to the generation of pragmatic resolutions for building new insights and linkages in the food system. The main focus of the dialogue was therefore achieved which was to stimulate critical conversations amongst the farmers ‘constituencies on the pathways towards the resilient local food systems.Dialogue Convenors are advised to use the Principles of Engagement as a toolkit that would act as a consolidated reference for organising independent dialogues. They have to understand that the food system is not only about the challenges faced by farmers within their scope of work but it goes much beyond that. Convenors have to be skilled and experienced to ensure that farmers do not only focus on the problems that they faced but rather analytically assess the strategies for a more sustainable food system. Organising coherent working groups is critical as it would help participants to appreciate the complexity and inter-linkages in the core elements of the food systems and the performance of the value chains structures and players. The dialogue conveners should also ensure that the events are organized to build messages that promote collaborations amongst the players and complementarity effect on the efforts of different players in the food system. At least one week prior to the event, important documentations on the current state of food systems should be sent to the participants to ensure that they are better informed for the dialogue and thus provide meaningful discussions and strategies.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The following guided the National Dialogue process: (1) Enhancing availability and equitable access to factors of production; (2) Advancing sustainability, equity, openness and fairness in the governance of food value chains, including international trade; (3) Shifting to nature positive production; (4) Priorities for public and development investments; (5) Build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks & stress. Questions for discussions: 1.0 Enhancing availability and equitable access to factors of production: (a) Provide major operational and financial risks faced by local food producers and agree on at least 3 strategic interventions that would be necessary to address this by the producers themselves and other chain actors; (b) Identify maximum 5 strategic interventions that can increase the pace and scale of the involvement of a younger generation of Agripreneurs. What can the younger generation undertake to contribute towards this, and what is it that they expect from other agri-stakeholders? (c) Suggest at least 3 recommendations for R & D Policies conducive for developing local seed banks, high yielding crop varieties, fertiliser subsidies, mechanisation, solar farming or other feasible forms of precision Agriculture. 2.0 Advancing sustainability, equity, openness and fairness in the governance of food value chains, including international trade: (a) Agree on at least 5 strategic interventions to deliver circular food systems-slashing on-farm and post-harvest losses; (b) Provide strategic actions of Food producers; (c) Suggest at least 3 inclusive polices for local trade and exportation opportunities; (d) Assess the opportunities of Agricultural Cooperatives as business models for farmers & SMEs. 3.0 Shifting to nature positive production: (a) Identify intervention areas where farmers and other concerned actors to protect of natural ecosystem; (b) Assess the contribution of novel sustainable farming practices such as Agroecology; (c) State relevant measures for decarbonisation and resilience with innovation; (d) Suggest roles of the public and development sector in de-risking and funding the transitional period. 4.0 Priorities for public and development investments: (a) Propose at least 3 strategic areas for public sector investments to catalyse the transformation of food value chain; (b) Suggest at least 3 relevant game-changing ideas in transforming the primary, production at scale (consider also the role of public and development sector funding in de-risking the transition towards more resilient, sustainable and inclusive food systems). 5.0 Build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks & stress: (a) State the contribution of Agro-forestry in scaling up climate resilience and other potential ecosystem contributions; (b) Suggest critical elements that could be included in national policies for resilient food systems aligned to natural risk management; (c) State coherent blue transformation strategies for resilient aquaculture & aquatic food systems; (d) Identify strategic intervention areas for improving existing risk management systems.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The major findings of the Five Action Tracks evolve mainly on the following areas: 1. Networking: The need to establish relationships between a variety of stakeholders; including scientists, researchers, and economists together with farmers, civil society, government agencies, corporates, academia. These groups play a significant role in establishing circular food systems, evaluating trade-offs and measuring results; 2. Actionable strategies: To achieve success, stakeholders have to collaborate to align public policies, subsidies, and financial investments that incentivize agri-businesses and farmers. 3. Empowering women’s agency and young farmers for resilience: Government should allocate special schemes for youth and women having an interest in farming. Government needs to facilitate collaboration among private Agri and IT companies, farmers associations, academia to resolve gaps faced by the young & women farmers. 4. Dialogues: A single dialogue per year does not have far-reaching impact in shaping resilient food systems. Along with international member organisations, Government and domestic corporates should provide funding to hold frequent national events that would assemble all the stakeholders in the food value chain for building on more sustainable and equitable food systems.2362382452462472482492511.0 Enhancing availability and equitable access to factors of production Operational/ Financial Risks: 1) Poor communication; 2) Business interruption due to impact of internal (e.g. high employee turnover; scarcity of skilled labour) and/or external factors (e.g. climatic change; natural calamities; pandemics); 3) Product failure; 4) Health and safety issues; 5) Loss of suppliers; 6) Availability of raw materials; 7) Credit risk; 8) Liquidity risk. Strategic interventions to address above risks by local food producers and other chain actors: 1) Agricultural insurance scheme to provide a safety net against external shocks on the business; 2) Training on health and safety issues to ensure traceability and quality; 3) Availability of accessible funding mechanisms by public and private funders; 4) Building on Credit systems prioritising economic status of smallholder farmers; 5) Governments should be lobbied to establish special disaster relief funds to assist farmers to kick-start businesses affected by natural calamities/pandemics; 6) Land should be made bankable for farmers to access capital; 7) Computerising the exchange system of agricultural produce for traceability to discourage thefts; 8) Engaging in Agricultural Cooperatives as a potential business models for aspiring farmers; 9) Collaboration of Government and IT companies to streamline farm operations that would result in an efficient supply chain; 10) Developing local organic certifications as the current ones are expensive. For e.g., the introduction of a local Participatory Guarantee System would be a life-changing for small organic farmers due to its low- cost of implementation. The PGS system would act as a local organic certifying body allowing farmers to sell their produce at retail prices. Strategic interventions to increase the pace and scale of the involvement of a younger generation of agripreneurs: 1) Agri-preneurship should be encouraged through the introduction of agricultural programmes for young people starting at primary school. Auxiliary measures such as the establishment of agricultural youth clubs (or associations such as the F.A.L.C.O.N Young Farmers launched by F.A.L.C.O.N Association at the University of Mauritius & at national level) from local, regional, national up to the global level & agricultural competitions should also be considered. Foster training (short courses, undergraduate ; postgraduate courses in digitilisation to attract youth ; 2) Provision of fiscal incentive for investment in the agricultural sector; 3) Engaging in adequate market infrastructure for efficient distribution, wholesale and retail of agricultural commodities; 4) Providing adequate infrastructure for value-addition to agricultural commodities; 5) Trade policies to encourage local food production and import substitution; 6) Special scheme allocation for women & youth to gain access to land, fertilisers, farm equipment etc.; 7) Set-up of specialised institutions that assist youth, women and other farmers to write projects that would help grow their business. What can the younger generation undertake to contribute towards this, and what is it that they expect from other agri-stakeholders? Commitment of the younger generation towards constructing a sustainable food system for Mauritius The younger generation expects that there is a shared belief amongst agri-stakeholders on fostering sustainable food production practices, sustainable food processing, distribution and responsible consumption. Recommendations for R & D Policies conducive for developing local seed banks, high yielding crop varieties, fertiliser subsidies, mechanisation, solar farming or other feasible forms of precision Agriculture: 1) R & D policies : - The development of low cost technology for precision farming adapted to the local context; - Research trials to develop bio fertilisers and biopesticides as substitutes for inorganic agricultural inputs; - Development of alternative sources of energy to fossil fuels.2362392432452462482492502.0 Advancing sustainability, equity, openness and fairness in the governance of food value chains, including international trade Strategic interventions to deliver circular food systems-slashing on-farm and post-harvest losses: Mauritius has signed an agreement with the UN and EU to reduce the post harvest losses by half- Mauritius is yet so far to reach that goal. Proposed strategies include: 1) Educate the farmers on how to build low cost storage rooms; 2) Make new business out of the rejected foods; 3) Educate the consumer about healthy vegetables being the ones with small amount of pesticides so as to prevent food loss; 4) Donation of food surplus; 5) The Agricultural Marketing Board (AMB) came up with the idea to work with the planters to store their vegetables in a cold storage facilities during this pandemic; 6) Make use of all vegetables that is both the imperfect and perfect vegetables. In Mauritius we need to adopt the system of selling both the perfect and imperfect vegetables as they do in France. Unsold vegetables can be donated to vulnerable people (practice adopted by Foodwise and Cuisine Solidaire in Mauritius); 7) Imperfect vegetables can be used by Agripreneurs and Entrepreneurs; 8)To minimize food loses we need to make use as a raw materials; for e.g., using the skin of onion to extract pectin; 9) Educate planters about the simple practices to reduce post harvest losses and how to make use of the appropriate temperature; 10) Implement solar cold storage as we have in Nigeria and India which can be beneficial to small planters; 11) Need to focus on the product to the maximum and know how to capitalize the product; For e.g., Banana are used for a lot of food products but the leaves are thrown away, the leaves could have been used in the making of packaging or even plates and bowls. Strategic actions of Food producers; It’s the consumers that dictate the producers what he wants. The mindset of consumers needs to change to encourage them to eat local food. 75% of our vegetables are imported. There is a competition between local producers and international producers. One action taken is the Made in Moris Products while other proposals would include: 1) Provide new farming techniques such as vertical farming; 2) Re-invent the farmers to be smart for example, to use inputs when needed, and to change the way they produce; 3)As proposed by a participant; create a plant academy to bridge the gap. The plant academy will consist of sharing of knowledge between new and old farmers about their ways of plantation and techniques that could be implemented to boost Agriculture; 4) Discuss on ways to buy and sell products; 5) Educate people toward biofarming, sustainable agriculture and about organic vegetables; 6) SKC Surat Ltd has implemented the Maurigap 1, 2, 3 and global gap strategies. They also added a seal of trust on most of their packaging which represent that the food is safe (Food Act). Inclusive polices for local trade and exportation opportunities: 1)Small planters should aim for Mauri GAP certified; 2) Promote vertical framing and also expand in the Horticulture business by proper guidance to planters; 3) Establish an authority for Horticulture; 4) It is difficult for small cooperatives to export their products. Set-up of grouping cooperatives is key in order to support each other in expanding their business in other countries; 5) Look into the food act, food regulation and processing of food for local businesses; 6) Reinvent ourselves in producing our food. Multiple small farmers and entrepreneur could create a small group of farmers producing the same vegetables or products and then export. Assessing opportunities of Agricultural Cooperatives as business models for farmers & SMEs: 1)The government or SMEs can create a Planters' Academy where the latter can help and guide the farmer to achieve his goal; 2)Incorporate packaging in the food chain, the farmer alone cannot produce and package its products- Cooperative authorities can help them.2362402442452462472482492503.0 Shifting to nature positive production Challenges: 1) Lack of education among farmers when it comes to farming techniques (excessive use of fertilisers and pesticides to maximise production); 2) Farmers are reluctant to shift to modern farming techniques; 3) Disinterest of youth to start a business in agriculture; 4) Producers are unaware of different policies and grants made available to them for ensuring a sustainable production; 5) In Mauritius, agricultural field plots are well defined by boundaries, and there is little encroachment in protected areas. The proximity of agricultural lands to natural water bodies does impose some problems with respect to leaching of agro -chemicals. Intervention areas where farmers and other concerned actors need to protect of natural ecosystem: 1) Introducing stringent laws to hinder disposal of fertilisers and pesticides in water bodies by agro-industries and farmers; 2) Legal Laws & regulations to earmark buffer regions near water bodies thus limiting damage caused by big agri-corporates/ large scale food producers; 3) Introduction of policies and constant follow-up on agri-companies/food producers to control the usage of agro-chemicals in their production (Similarly, farmers growing vegetables like watercress that are grown in water bodies, should be careful while using pesticides to control caterpillars). Assessing the contribution of novel sustainable farming practices such as Agroecology: 1) Introducing green belts around vegetable fields. This can help to act as wind breaks, but also attract pollinators; 2) Agro-forestry is also good practice as a good agricultural practice for both crop plantation as well as for rearing animals ( grazing grounds). Over years, farmers have been encouraged to shift to organic ​farming, which is more ecological way to safer food production; 3) Engaging in sensitisation campaign not only to educate farmers but also to consumers is equally ​important as they are the one setting the demand aspect; 4) Organising seminars on different value addition methods; 5) Encouraging young farmers to implement new farming techniques to increase productivity and to ensure a ​sustainable production; 6) Developing soil regeneration programmes (F.A.L.C.O.N Association provides both theoretical & practical ​courses on soil biodiversity management)and that can only happen though controlled and minimal use of ​fertilizers and other agro-chemicals that add to greenhouse gas emission such as nitrous oxides and ​methane. Roles of the public and development sector in de-risking and funding the transitional period: 1) Public body are the drivers to change, by setting proper legislations and policies. Similarly, there should be ​schemes to encourage to take risks and endeavor in new agricultural ventures; 2) Efficient water use is also an important component in new scenarios of climate change, where dry ​seasons are more frequent. Need to have schemes on rain water harvesting systems, so that they become ​more popular among farmers in Mauritius as well as subsidies on irrigation systems like drip irrigation ​implements; 3) Subsidies on bio-organic fertilisers & pesticides to promote organic and even agroecological farming; 4) Government & private companies should provide sponsors to farmers associations to engage in ​national awareness campaigns on organic agriculture, agroecological practices ( F.A.L.C.O.N Association ​is already engaged in such activities)2362412432452462472482492502514.0 Priorities for public and development investments Strategic areas for public sector investments to catalyse the transformation of the value chain: 1) Enhancing enforcement of regulations for sustainable crop production and movements along the value chain; 2) Focusing investment in public research for better results in sustainable crop production. Targeted research should be identified so that human and capital investment are geared towards pre-identified outputs (to transform the value chain). Currently, research is done in a haphazard manner with limited coordination among institutions for the application of the results of the research on the fields. Therefore, focused applied research can transform the value chain for more sustainable food production; 3) Development of locally-adapted technologies for transforming the food value chain to respond to the evolving client base and technologies available for sustainable food production; 4) Subsides on Soil analysis: The food chain starts with what we produce on the soil, but what is already in the soil is crucial to know before amending with fertilizers. By doing a soil analysis, the nutrients in the soil are known thus avoiding the use of excessive or unnecessary fertilizers. Make the soil analysis accessible to farmers, partly the government and partly the farmers pay; 5) Mechanization of farms: Making use of IT to facilitate farming as a whole. Use of drones to apply fertilizer or to detect diseases and pests on the plot or greenhouse. The technologies are available elsewhere which makes it easier to bring and adapt the technologies to the local context; 6) Incentives and schemes: Attract young farmers or the new farmers with ideas to implement and build their projects. Many people are discouraged to opt for farming as it is a risky business. Relevant game-changing ideas in transforming the primary, production at scale both in the short and medium term (consider also the role of public and development sector funding in de-risking the transition towards more resilient, sustainable and inclusive food systems): 1) Promoting the use of IoT in agricultural production by government through schemes and incentives and technology development; 2) Encouraging farmers at primary production level to explore technologies yielding sustainable farming practices; 3) Consider using green climate funds for development of a sustainable and inclusive food systems; 4) Creating a Zero- Spoilage platform: Invest in infrastructure where the defective post-harvest farm produce or unsold produce are brought- a small market of 'ugly' farm produce could be created for every small planter and supported by government; 5) Investing in storage facility and food processing: Excess food can be stored in a cold room, thus when there is a shortage on the market, the product is re- exposed to be sold and not wasted. Freezing or chilling become an issue to vegetables, but freeze drying is the best solution to store. 6) Government and private sectors should be lobbied to step up with subsidies/ schemes to promote self- sufficiency that would address threats of high import bill, natural calamities & pandemics; 7) Government should collaborate with banking services to offer smart loans such as self-liquidating loans which is repaid by the productivity of what the loan was secured to purchase. For e.g., a crop production loan can be paid off when crops are sold; 8) Renting/ leasing land facilities should be available by government bodies to alleviate farmers with the financial risk associated with high land loans.2362422442452462482492502515.0 Build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks & stress Contribution of Agro-forestry in scaling up climate resilience and other potential ecosystem contributions: Agroforestry is the introduction of trees in agricultural systems (crops, livestock or both). Agroforestry provides various environmental and socio-economic benefits. These include: 1) Enhanced biodiversity with diverse habitats, which facilitates the integration of pest management practices through biological control; 2) Improved pollinator communities lead to an increase in crop productivity; 3) Agroforestry provides diversified income and increase the resilience of farmers; 4) Improved water management. Trees can contribute to the contribution of a microclimate which can be favourable for the growth of plants and provide shade to livestock. Trees can be used to create shelterbelts to protect crops against wind damage; 5) The integration of leguminous trees can improve soil fertility. Breakdown of organic matter from trees also improves soil texture and fertility; 6) Soil retention through contour planting; 7) Carbon sequestration; 8) Agroforestry maximises land use and allows the derivation of maximum benefits from trees on agricultural land. Critical elements that could be included in national policies for resilient food systems aligned to natural risk management: 1) Use of appropriate species along river reserves, drains and canals to retain soil and prevent leaching; 2) Mobilising appropriate methods for agriculture on slopes (contour and terrace farming) or restrict agricultural activities on slopes; 3) Supporting agricultural systems which are respectful of the environment through labelling/branding, guaranteed markets, or incentives (incentives should be based on productive output); 4) Improving the structure of the market and develop value chains to reduce competition between farmers and reach out to other market opportunities. Coherent blue transformation strategies for resilient aquaculture & aquatic food systems & strategic intervention areas for building improving risk management systems: Challenges: 1) Insufficient resources are available to exploit marine resources; 2) Some coast inhabitants, specially the fishermen, are unaware of the fact that the fish they catch are not healthy and would make consumers suffer; 3) Aquaculture farming can leave a great impact but the government was not ready for this great project; 4) Presently, CSA is not sufficiently addressed in our national strategies; this should be added and enforced accordingly; 5) It is not easy to change the mindset of farmers to convince them to change their organic farming to something more resilient and technologically modern. Intervention Areas: 1) Collaboration of universities to help address challenges - University of Mauritius (UOM) and many NGO’s in Mauritius are working collaboratively for coral farming as it is a feasible method; 2) Investing in sensitisation campaigns to promote consumer awareness on resilient blue economy pathways as demand comes from consumers, which could be a very powerful incentive for farmers to adopt resilient practices; 3) More farmers’ sensitisation and training on CSA practices; 4) Establishing certification and standards that will incentivise farmers to adopt resilient practices; 5) Government should be lobbied to introduce national policies for enforcing biosafety and biosecurity in local aquaculture; 6) Consumer demand is less for local aquaculture species; this should be changed through awareness and marketing; 7) Large scale aquaculture is tremendously expensive and therefore government has to encourage small scale aquaculture, especially at backyard level. 8) Investing in IT infrastructure for aquaculture is mandatory to help small scale aquaculture beneficiaries; 9) Setting up of training courses in universities or in MITD to train local graduates or officers in climate risk management; 10) Investing in Artificial Intelligence for Climate Risk Profiling to expand early action financing, enhance early warning systems and upgrading the capacity to act.237238239240241242244245246248249251Based on the outcomes from the National Dialogue, a near total convergence of thoughts and analysis were noticed. The area of discussion that appeared to have raised many voices were the current financial aids conferred by the government in sustaining farmers in the blue & green economies respectively. Subsidies, smart loans, bankable lands have been commonly agreed to motivate farmers to grow their domestic agri-enterprises or even motivate the aspiring young & women agri-preneurs to engage in farming-related activities. Under the current arrangement, efforts have been made to extract maximum game-changing resolutions through simultaneous group discussions in the five sub-groups but yet the kind of focus herein probed was still not sufficient to grasp more strategies due to time constraint. For further meaningful discussions and assisting in the creation of pragmatic policies, more multi-stakeholder workshops would have to be organised.

2021-06-01 14:17:41204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/16079/91

5543413430251223471554114151451132111

When planning the event, every effort was made to invite participants reflecting as broad a range of backgrounds and perspectives as possible in order to have an inclusive and balanced debate. Training was provided to Facilitators and Note-takers in advance of the event to outline the purpose, methodology and Principles of Engagement, emphasising that differing viewpoints are welcome and encouraged. At the event, the Principles of Engagement were outlined in detail to the participants by the Convenor before breaking up into the Discussion Groups to ensure an open, diverse and inclusive debate of the issues.The event began with two keynote presentations – one on EU livestock in a sustainable agriculture sector, outlining both benefits and challenges, and the second on communicating science and engaging the public. These excellent presentations contributed to setting a tone of openness and inclusivity, reflecting the contribution and complexity of livestock production within the agricultural sector and rural communities, as well as the importance of balanced debate and scientific evidence in leading society and policy.Training is critical to ensure all contributors are well informed of the approach and principles of UN Food Systems Summit Dialogues.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Livestock production systems are an essential part of the EU and global food system and can convert feed that is inedible for humans into food. In Ireland, livestock production is a major part of the agricultural sector, with over 90% of total agricultural area dedicated to grass production for ruminant grazing and feed. The sector supports the livelihoods and economies of regions, contributes to rural vitality in particular in marginal areas and is an intrinsic part of the cultural landscape. Sustainable livestock farming can make an important contribution to climate change mitigation and biodiversity protection, however many questions arise that have room for debate as we consider the role of livestock production in our future food system. Given the socio-economic importance of the sector to Ireland and the general debate in Europe surrounding meat consumption as part of future sustainable diets, the theme of this Dialogue was the “role of livestock in developing a sustainable food system”, encompassing the entire food chain from farm to fork in a systems perspective. In selecting this broad topic, many societal issues of importance are evoked, including economic viability of rural communities, social vitality and resilience, environmental protection and enhancement, consumer decision-making and empowerment. Furthermore, all of the UN Food Systems Summit Levers of Change have relevance (gender, human rights, finance and innovation). With this in mind, seven topics within this broad theme were elaborated which focus on critical aspects or enablers of future sustainable livestock production systems: 1. Livestock products as part of a healthy diet 2. Rural livelihoods 3. Environmental sustainability 4. Animal welfare and anti-microbial resistance 5. Technologies for the future 6. Food versus feed competition 7. Communicating science Each of the Discussion Groups elaborated a vision for 2030 based on their theme, drawing on a diverse group of participants from across the food system to consider the actions and actors needed to realise this ambitious vision. Prior to the Discussion Groups, excellent keynote presentations were made by two eminent scientists: Dr. Jean-Louis Peyraud, Deputy Scientific Director at INRAE (French National Research Institute for Agriculture, Food and Environment) and Prof. Luke O’Neill, Professor of Biochemistry and an immunologist at Trinity College Dublin. These scientists framed the Dialogue and provoked some discussion points on the role of livestock in sustainable food systems, as well as the challenges of communicating science and combatting misinformation.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Livestock production systems will continue to make a critical contribution towards the European diet and agricultural sector in 2030. However, significant efforts are needed to ensure that safe, nutritious and affordable food produced in environmentally sustainable systems is available and enjoyed by all, rural livelihoods and areas are protected and value is distributed equitably. This Dialogue discussed many different aspects of livestock as part of a sustainable food system, incorporating views from across the research, farming/producers, NGOs, industry, business and policy communities. It identified three key action areas or enablers of change which need to be implemented in the next years to achieve a more sustainable food system. Firstly, the policy system will need to evolve to deliver better outcomes for farmers and society. This should include supports to incentivise and remunerate farmers for both food and ecosystem services, encourage environmentally-friendly farming and support high-welfare systems. A coherent rural or land-use policy (across agriculture, forestry, energy, environment, rural development, local planning policy) is urgently required to promote holistic governance and coherent decision-making. This will help to avoid, for example, growing food for animal consumption and optimise land use and management towards sustainability goals. Targeted supports will be needed to ensure a fair and just transition and open up new opportunities for farmers, enterprises and artisan producers. Support for the diversity of emerging sustainable livelihood strategies will be critical, including education and training, as well as demonstration and scaling up of innovative approaches. Generational renewal will need to be reinforced, providing support for young people including women and new entrants. Policy supports to ensure the market generates a fair return to producers will be critical also if more sustainable, and possibly more costly, products are to dominate. A second key enabler of change centers on the idea of ‘knowledge fueling action’. This relates to leveraging science, research, collaboration, data and new technologies to enhance decision-making among all of the actors in the food chain and in policy. This will include measurement systems across the food chain to track progress and enhance transparency. Better labelling of food products, including nutrition and sustainability credentials, will empower consumers to make informed and healthy choices. Knowledge for society will be needed to communicate the transformations led by farmers to enhance environmental indicators and animal health and welfare in sustainable farms. Knowledge for adoptive and adaptive capacity will support rural livelihoods through enterprise evolution and transformation. Knowledge for policy will ensure that decision-making is founded on the scientific evidence base. Finally, change must be supported by public discourse involving many voices that bring diverse perspectives and science-based evidence. Consumers need to be better understood and their voice brought more into the debate, recognising that there are many different ‘publics’ with differing views. Clearer communication and messaging is needed with consumers, which will require a greater level of consensus and collaboration across the whole food system. As seen during the Covid-19 crisis, scientists remain a trusted source of information for society and they will need to play an ever increasing role in public discourse to ensure that data and evidence on food systems is available and easily understood.236238239241243246248249251DISCUSSION TOPIC 1: Vision Statement - “Livestock products will contribute to healthy diets” This discussion focussed on the role of livestock food products in healthy and sustainable diets in 2030. There was general consensus on the desired outcomes to achieve the vision, but some divergence as to the pathways and specific actions. Among the actions identified was the need for consumers to adopt national healthy eating guidelines. To support this, clear communication with understandable, simplistic definitions will be needed, as well as labelling to empower consumers. More science-based facts should be available to consumers and education on healthy and sustainable food consumption needs to be supported from an early age. A focus on dietary patterns rather than individual components will also be important. There was divergence of opinion among the participants as to (i) how to measure and communicate the nutritiousness and sustainability of livestock products, (ii) whether we should adopt a more plant-based diet and minimise livestock or not and (iii) whether increased consumption of animal production should be promoted from a nutritional perspective. It was agreed that mobilisation of key actors along the food chain will be needed, including citizens/consumers, state and national regulatory authorities, celebrities, farmers and fishers, the national food board (Bord Bia), chefs and retailers. Some divergences emerged as to the need for food processors and manufacturers to be involved. Some critical factors for enabling progress towards healthy and sustainable diets were identified. It was agreed that the message to consumers should be simple and that greater awareness of the connections between food and health and also national guidelines be fostered. Two enabling technologies were identified as important: digital labelling identifying beneficial nutrients in unpackaged/unprocessed foods (particularly those we are deficient in) and nutritional analysis of the entire shopping basket (phone-based app based on scanned produce). The participants proposed that they could support these changes by ensuring a greater level of consensus on core messages, by embedding healthy food and nutrition in institutional structures and by seeking out common ground and building on it. It was proposed that cooperation between the relevant government ministries (Department of Agriculture, Food & the Marine and Department of Health) be strengthened and that efforts be reinforced to work towards agreement on the national 2030 Agri-Food Strategy. The participants identified some tension points in the progress towards healthy and sustainable diets with regard to opposing views on nutrition, for example, in relation to the findings of the EAT-Lancet report. Consensus and collaboration between the two relevant government departments should also be improved in terms of food labelling and dietary recommendations. In summary, the group strongly agreed that clearer communication is essential for enacting change in our diets and that a greater level of consensus & collaboration is urgently required, based around a single, succinct message within the food system. The importance of labelling in empowering consumers to make informed and healthy choices is also critical. Some challenges/tensions can be expected however. In certain cases, farmers are seen as the problem and not part of the solution. New entrants to dairy production are also constrained by growing environmental regulation. In relation to afforestation, barriers to adoption include its permanence, loss of social welfare pension and ineligibility for Farm Assist. A lack of focus on older person in relation to farm partnerships was also highlighted. In terms of organic and artisan food production, there is a lack of focus on market development. There is a critical need for markets to generate a fair return to producers if development of sustainable livestock systems is to be successful. Finally, coherent rural / land use policy (across agriculture, forestry, energy, environment, rural development, local planning policy) is urgently required.236238240241242243244245246248249251DISCUSSION TOPIC 2: Vision Statement - “Development of sustainable farm livelihoods by equipping farmers and farm households with the transformative capabilities to adapt their enterprise and household strategies to the evolving natural, technological and policy environment, in producing and marketing food and providing public goods” This discussion focused on ensuring sustainable and resilient rural livelihoods in the future agricultural production and food system. A wide range of topics were discussed with strong consensus, resulting in three main outcomes. Due to the complexity of the issues for farmers and farm households (different viability challenges for different cohorts (age, system, region)), it was agreed that actions must involve systems solutions. Collaborative approaches with farmers at the centre, e.g. EIP-Agri in new CAP, will also be needed. It will be important to develop stakeholder capacity to innovate in the area of smart, green growth and to match resources for skills development with local need to support remote areas having low employment opportunities. In terms of supports, two key areas were identified: (i) support for well-serviced resilient rural communities, including investment in rural broadband and community supports, and (ii) supports for inclusive farm generational renewal. All rural stakeholders should be involved, with farmers at the centre of solutions. Rural communities, research, education, extension providers and rural supports will need to be mobilised. Furthermore, ‘Our Rural Future’, the Irish government’s new policy for the post-COVID-19 recovery and development of rural Ireland should be implemented through an ‘all-of-government’ approach. Key factors in bringing these actions to fruition were discussed. Greater diversification opportunities for livestock farmers will be critical, including enterprise change, innovation and adaption, as well as value-added farm processing and direct selling. Market development support is needed for the latter to be realised. Greater support for vulnerable farm families has to be provided, and more support for women in agriculture (access to land/capital, more options for retirement/partnership). Farm families will also need to have better, more flexible off-farm employment opportunities, in particular attractive employment opportunities in well-serviced rural digital hubs. The group identified several benefits of taking such actions. Adopting a systems approach will support a move from silo thinking to bringing all elements together. These actions will also support capacity development, leading to diffusion of learning among rural communities. Digitalisation can bring multiple benefits across the entire food system. More adaptable, resilient local economies and food systems will also be enabled. To support these actions, it was agreed that for farmers/farmer networks and advisors, mentors will be critical to supporting young farmers, farm and non-farm diversification, partnerships/collaborative arrangements and succession. Training and development agencies can support capacity development through knowledge exchange, training and upskilling/reskilling. The development of ‘community ecosystems’ were seen as an important step, as well as the promotion of innovation and good practice through case studies. In summary, the group agreed three elements for sustainable rural livelihoods in 2030. Firstly, there must be support for the diversity of emerging sustainable livelihood strategies, including maximising productivity/ efficiency from a single enterprise, portfolios of farm enterprises (including the environmental enterprise) and a blend of farm/non-farm activities. Secondly, knowledge exchange and capacity development will be critical: knowledge for policy measures and for society – communicating the transformations led by farmers to enhance air and animal health and welfare, water quality, biodiversity, carbon sequestration and knowledge for adoptive and adaptive capacity, through enterprise evolution and transformation. Finally, generational renewal needs to be reinforced through access to land for younger people and succession support.236238239240241242243244245248249250DISCUSSION TOPIC 3: Vision Statement - “Irish agriculture will continue to meet the global demand for livestock food produced within planetary boundaries, being an exemplar of environmentally friendly, economically and socially viable production” The participants agreed that intensification has been driven by cheap food and, in the future, the price of food has to reflect ecosystem services. Demand for ecosystem services should be supported: this will provide an income without intensification of agricultural production. Another critical element is the adaption of outputs to land capacity. There is also a need for rapid knowledge transfer in implementing what is already known across the value chain. There is currently a huge amount of mixed messages and we need to work towards a consensus view. There was some divergence of opinion as to sustainability and intensification and how to achieve a balance – whether we should hold intensification until we determine whether it can be done within sustainability boundaries and whether to balance with farm income. A broad range of actors will need to be mobilised, including players in the full supply chain, retailers/wholesalers, consumers, marketers, the organic value chain and government (to support the higher cost of organic/high environmental standard food). Consumers’ willingness to pay was also identified as a key consideration. Key factors and enablers in bringing these actions to fruition include implementation of Article 9 regulation for a fair marketplace, as well as food price measures to divert more of the share to primary producers. Another critical element is food origin and sustainability labelling. Better policy formulation in general is needed and more focus on implementing the existing measures to achieve environmental targets. It was proposed that more flexibility in the on-going implementation of the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and more national control over the CAP is needed, and that we should reduce our dependence on the CAP as the solution to all issues. The benefits/impacts of implementing the agreed actions include helping to address the climate and biodiversity emergency and avoid a potential food security emergency. We could also achieve a better balance between food and the other outputs from land. A reduction in overconsumption/waste would occur due partly to advertising/influencing producers and consumers. We would generate unambiguous data about sustainability and our food system and solutions to problems. Environmental impacts would also be reduced by producing food where it is most environmentally positive rather than cheapest. To support these actions, we need to rely on science and the evidence base and to keep communication clear. Education of the wider community, not just farmers, will be needed. Enabling demonstrable change will require a bit of ‘bravery’ to bring about better policy. Policy/measures to address cheap food and divergence in standards are needed and the gap in pricing between the final product and farmer receipt widened. We also need to deliver on the environmental outcomes that are being funded through the CAP. Finally, we need to urgently mobilise efforts to enact change in a system which can deliver more for the environment and for farmers. Tensions and challenges will need to be managed, however. These include the viability of farmers at different prices, the CAP reform process, control of the market and the cost of food, which is currently too cheap and leading to intensification. In summary, the participants agreed that there is an urgent need for change, both from a production and an environmental perspective. We need to fundamentally alter the policy system to deliver better outcomes for farmers & society. In addition, farmers need to be paid more for both food and ecosystem services.236238239240241242243244245246248249250DISCUSSION TOPIC 4: Vision Statement - “High farm animal welfare standards, which are compatible with human welfare and protection of the environment, ensure prudent antimicrobial use and socially acceptable food production” The participants were in agreement on some key actions that need to be taken urgently to achieve this vision, with some divergences on the approach to be adopted. The main actions identified were better communication platforms between stakeholders involved in animal production and better use of health/performance data. A move towards more extensive/regenerative systems and outdoor access into current systems (e.g. for pig farms) was also highlighted. Global interventions for animal health issues to eradicate disease will be needed, as well as additional payment for animals produced to higher standards (e.g. antibiotic-free). Policy will need to change to eliminate the need for farmers to achieve economies of scale in order to make a living from farming. The key actors that need to be involved include producers, regulators, financiers of big agriculture, OIE, educators (especially on the link between welfare and performance), certification bodies and risk assessors. Consumers will need to be educated on the true cost of sustainable/welfare-friendly food, however a divergent view also emerged that consumers don’t necessarily have much power to make change – they buy what is on the shelf. Vets have a role in encouraging producers to optimise vaccination programmes to reduce risk of disease and AMU. Teagasc can also provide education on herd health and vaccination and promote transdisciplinary research to incorporate welfare measures into non-welfare projects. Processors can support better animal welfare by paying a higher price for higher standard products. Implementation of policy must be in tandem with supports and resources and communication should be improved between producers and industry (e.g. good in dairy, room for improvement in pig sector at the moment). In order to enact change, targeted education programmes for producers and processors will be needed, as well as improved labelling/certification, benchmarking of animal welfare on farms and incentives for higher standards. Research on higher welfare and performance is needed, in addition to risk assessments along the food chain. Precision livestock farming and better use of existing data were also proposed; however, technology was not seen as a panacea and may impose higher costs on farmers. The proposed actions will lead to real benefits: higher welfare systems, reduced GHG emissions and anti-microbial usage, enhanced human welfare and greater support for rural communities. Possible negative impacts include the potential emergence of new disease risks (e.g. Avian influenza) and greater biosecurity risks due to more small farms. Some challenges identified to enacting change include GDPR, which may inhibit open communication, tension between intensification and extensive farming in terms of biosecurity and lack of ownership of some of the constraints by some stakeholders. In summary, there was consensus that moving to high animal welfare production systems offers a win-win situation for all but there was concern over its seeming incompatibility with the (supposed?) intensification required to achieve food security. Novel/extensive/regenerative systems (those included in the ‘circular’ food system model) could pose new biosecurity/emerging disease threats that need to be considered as this would jeopardise the high ‘animal welfare production system’ model. Finally, incentives for farmers to change to high welfare systems are required at retail and policy level.236238239240243244245248249DISCUSSION TOPIC 5: Vision Statement - “Technologies will play a substantial role in the provision of fair, safe and sustainable supply chains ensuring a responsible use of natural resources and a reduction of food loss and waste, making sustainability the easy choice for consumers” This discussion group focussed on the role of technology in the 2030 food system, in particular in relation to enhancing sustainability across the food chain. The participants were mostly in consensus on their discussion points, with only some divergence on particular actions to be implemented. It was agreed that smart technologies have a major role to play across the full supply chain, from soil to food, and that blockchain will be an important tool for enhancing transparency in the system. Critical actions to be undertaken include identifying the gaps in knowledge, data and technology, increasing engagement and supporting education in the area. Incentives will also be required to scale-up promising approaches and tools. Divergences of opinion emerged as to the use of genetics as a tool and culling among herds to improve efficiencies. A wide range of actors will need to be mobilised to fully exploit the potential of technologies in the sector. This includes the government (Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine), state agencies (Teagasc, Irish Food Board (Bord Bia)), farmers and farm organisations, breeders (e.g. Irish Cattle Breeding Federation (ICBF)), co-operatives, consumers (especially future generations), scientists including social scientists, industry and environmental actors. Critical to implementing these actions will be financial incentives and technical support for users and support services. Demonstration of systems and data will also be important to ensure technology take-up. Communication & education forums will help to enhance engagement and up-skill different groups. Finally, citizen science, as a growing field of study, can be utilised to enhance buy-in and co-develop innovative solutions. The benefits of enacting these changes in the current food system will be to improve the value of agricultural products and to enhance efficiencies across the value chain. Economic returns can be expected through reduced labour, improved profitability and greater acceptance of livestock products. Finally, medicine use can be reduced through smart management of production systems and welfare standards improved. The participants identified contributions they could make through measurement and provision of real-time data, independent validation of methodologies and education for farmers on the use of smart technologies. The greatest tensions identified by the participants centred on how to define efficiency in livestock production systems, how to deal with inefficiencies, especially in relation to animals, and who bears the cost of these new technologies. In summary, the participants agreed that a data-driven approach is key to identifying the best return on investment but this requires collaboration. Measurement systems are required across the food supply chain, keeping in mind that transparency is important. To maximise the potential of technologies in enabling fair, safe and sustainable supply chains, concerted efforts will be required to scale up and provide targeted education, including incentives & supports.236238239241243246248249250DISCUSSION TOPIC 6: Vision Statement - “Feed/food competition should be eliminated” This discussion group explored the topic of competition between feed and food in future agricultural systems and what role human-edible feed should have in the diet of animals. There was consensus on several discussion points but also some divergent views. It was agreed that food and feed competition should be minimised and that this should occur through optimised land management at national, EU and global level. This will require a complete re-think of how policy is implemented at these levels, e.g. climate policy currently operates at national level which may increase food-feed competition. It was agreed that animals form an important part of the cycle of capturing CO2 via photosynthesis for conversion to carbohydrates for human consumption. In particular in Ireland, ruminants play a very valuable role in converting biomass that is not edible by humans, grown in areas that are not well suited to crop production. In relation to particular actions to be implemented into the future, the participants proposed that consideration should be given in national greenhouse gas emissions accounting to move to consumption-based accounting as opposed to country of production-based accounting. It was agreed that there is significant confusion among consumers – that they are lacking robust, clear, factual information from verified sources on the topic of livestock production and that actions are needed in that respect to enhance communication with consumers. Divergences of opinion emerged as to whether the land-use ratio should be employed more when evaluating ruminant production. This ratio could examine if a livestock system contributes to feed-food competition by comparing the current animal protein against the potential plant protein production from that land area and provide insights into how to optimise land-use management. There was also disagreement about whether non-ruminant production makes sense in Ireland or not in the context of feed versus food competition. To enable these actions to come to fruition, reliable data should be available to the public, including through a fact-checker website. More sophisticated branding of agricultural products providing consumers with verified information on sustainability aspects, such as energy and water use and the land-use ratio, will also be needed. There were different views among participants as to whether communication should be less based around science, and instead the opportunities presented in ruminant systems to convert forage to protein should be highlighted. Key actors that need to be mobilised to support these actions include consumers, policy makers, scientists and public agencies. The participants were divided as to whether the media should have a key role. The participants agreed that a possible impact of these actions would be the use of locally-produced by-products as feedstuffs in livestock production systems (e.g. residues of fruit or vegetables and by-products of agro-industry), with less dependence on imported protein sources. However, it was acknowledged that an “all-ruminant” island could lead to negative impacts on biodiversity. There was disagreement as to whether non-ruminant animal numbers should be capped based on the supply of these by-products. Communication on research findings would be needed to support these efforts and convert research results into implemented solutions. If ruminant production is to be prioritised in order to reduce feed/food competition, the greatest tension identified was in relation to how to support a fair transition to a livestock sector based on a single industry – alternative opportunities would have to be provided to farmers. In summary, it was agreed that we need to utilise land in a way that avoids growing food for animal consumption. There is an urgent need for verifiable, factual information for all stakeholders. Significant efforts in relation to education, communication and public engagement will therefore be needed. Finally, a fair transition is needed to create new opportunities.236238239243244246248249DISCUSSION TOPIC 7: Vision Statement - “All actors work together to create reliable and trustworthy sources of information rebuilding public and consumer confidence and trust in the science underpinning our sustainable food system” This discussion group explored the role of science communication in enabling a better future for food systems in 2030. The first of the key actions agreed by the participants was the need to understand the consumer and include the consumer voice in the debate. It must also be recognised that there are many different ‘publics’ with different points of view and they should be involved in the co-creation of projects with societal impact. Trust in science has increased (e.g. SFI Science in Ireland Barometer 2020, IPSOS Veracity Index 2020) and we need to include more scientists in the communication, which should be underpinned by training for scientists in public communication. They should also be facilitated to allocate time to communication and receive rewards/recognition for such work. Scientists should be consistent, truthful and open in their communication and be willing to acknowledge what they don’t know, as this promotes confidence among the public. Consistent and proven proof points on sustainability issues should be developed at a national and EU level to support collaboration and build trust. Making evidence more readily available, including solid data sources and fact-checking capabilities, was also deemed critical. The key actors that will need to be mobilised to support these efforts include consumers (encompassing a ‘range of publics’), more scientists, industry, media, research institutes and universities. It was proposed to build the principle of ‘science capital’ into all aspects of communication. The potential impact of such actions would be to enhance trust in science, which has already increased during the pandemic. There was some divergence in relation to trust in science on food, however, with some perceptions that when it comes to food, other factors are at play and consumers tend to rely on other sources of information, that may not be underpinned by scientific evidence. Participants agreed that communications should be aimed at those who trust and believe in science, rather than the detractors. For some complex, emotive topics, such as animal welfare, we need to adopt a systems approach to communicating and understanding the complexity of the issues. The use of social media was an area of divergence. There was a view that agencies and scientists don’t engage enough on social media and should have clear messages. There is a need for better conversations on the science and to have more informed scientists involved in the debate. In summary, it was agreed that we need to understand the consumer better and involve the consumer voice more in the debate. We need to recognise the many different ‘publics’ with different points of view and listen to them. Consistent and proven proof points need to be developed on, e.g. environment for industry. Trust in science has increased – we need to include more scientists in the communication and be willing to say what we don’t know. Training in public communication is needed and rewards provided for allocating time to it. Data and evidence needs to be made more readily available and fact-checking facilities created.237238239243244246248249250The greatest divergences of opinion that emerged during the Dialogue were in relation to how we can optimise the contribution of the livestock sector in the future to a sustainable and equitable food system providing safe, healthy and nutritious food to consumers. At the system level, livestock production was discussed in terms of sustainability goals and intensification and how to achieve a balance. Some participants felt intensification should be limited until we can determine whether it can be done within sustainability boundaries, while others suggested it should be balanced with farm income. Culling among herds to improve efficiencies was another divisive issue that emerged. There were also differences of opinion on the use of genetics as a tool. Within livestock systems, there was debate regarding ruminant and non-ruminant animal production. Participants had differing views as to whether non-ruminant production makes sense in the future in Ireland if we are to optimise our land use. Some felt that the land-use ratio should be employed more when evaluating ruminant production in order to assess whether livestock systems contribute to food-feed competition, as well as over-dependence on feed imports. Another area of divergence related to empowering consumers with the information needed to make sustainable and nutritious decisions. Participants differed on how to measure and communicate the nutritiousness and sustainability of livestock products and also whether increased consumption of animal production should be promoted from a nutritional perspective. There was also some discussion as to whether we should adopt a more plant-based diet and minimise livestock or not. It was agreed that efforts are needed to educate consumers on the true cost of sustainable/welfare-friendly food, however, some participants felt that consumers don’t necessarily have much power to make change – it depends what is available for them to buy. While it was agreed that trust in science had increased, in particular during the pandemic, some participants felt that other factors come into play in relation to food and that consumers tend to rely on other sources of information that may not be underpinned by scientific evidence. Finally, social media emerged as a major topic for debate in the Discussion Groups following the keynote presentation by Prof. Luke O’Neill on communicating science and engaging the public. Some participants felt that scientists don’t engage enough in social media and have an important role to play in dispelling misinformation and providing clear, factual messages underpinned by scientific evidence. However, others felt that social media does not provide a forum for balanced debate and is often used to discredit or undermine scientific consensus.

2021-06-01 15:04:02205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/8182/176

1012972133225206322911512291411023111810

Participation was broad and information was given on the principles of engagement ahead and during the meeting.It is very important to create an open environment and to give the possibility for feedback.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The focus of this dialogue, which was second stage, was a comprehensive exploration of food systems, but with a regional and local focus.235238239240241242This second stage dialogue reinforced many of the findings of the first national dialogue and went more into depth regarding the vision statements provided there. It highlighted that many solutions are already in place on a local and regional level and that there is potential for scaling up, but that the national level is at times to slow and that regulations, for example regarding public procurement, are sometimes obstacles. The dialogue also highlighted the necessity for youth to express their view and showcased examples of this. It also showcased the perspective of immigrant groups and their contribution to a diversified food system in Sweden. For details please see attachment.236please see attachment237Please see attachment.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Report-from-the-regional-dialogue-in-Sodertalje-24-March-2021-eng.pdfhttps://matlust.eu/se-inspelningen-av-den-regionala-fao-dialogen-i-sodertalje-24-mars/

2021-06-01 16:19:18204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/16087/91

712422743282285141535213371321310

Each of the Principles were highlighted in the opening comments by the convenor at the start of the Dialogue, and all the discussion facilitators were briefed in advance to champion the Principles within the discussion sessions.The Dialogue included a wide and diverse group of individuals that represented the range and variety of actors that participate in the Agricultural Knowledge and Innovative System (AKIS).Having participants aware in advance of the background to the discussion topic was useful to help to make good use of time during the break-out discussions.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245248249251The focus of the Dialogue was to explore the importance of an effective Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation System (AKIS) in order to support sustainable food systems in the future. The AKIS is a complex and inclusive network or system of actors that collectively participate, interact and contribute to the generation and flow of information and knowledge, and the creation and implementation of innovations within the food system. The scope of the AKIS is very broad. It extends beyond the more traditional model of top-down or linear knowledge flow from research to knowledge transfer actors to farmers. The AKIS is inclusive of the broader end-user concept that includes not only farmers, but also the wider impact on consumers, rural communities and society in general. It also includes a broad and complex pool of actors that have a role in the agri-food chain through policy; regulation, funding bodies, research; advisors; education, farmers, professional services, financial services, input suppliers, media, food processors, consumers and society. The goal of having a more sustainable food system will require the generation and application of knowledge and innovations to an extent that surpasses what we do currently. All of the Action Tracks identified require multi-actor participation. The AKIS has a significant role to play in achieving this by providing the framework through which the actors can work together. Within this dialogue, six aspects of the AKIS were explored and discussed as key elements to how the AKIS can be developed in the future. These areas were: 1) diversity within the AKIS; 2) attracting talented people into careers within the AKIS; 3) training and skills development within the AKIS; 4) how data and digital tools can empower the AKIS; 5) facilitating innovation; and 6) ensuring the AKIS is fast and effective in achieving changes towards sustainable food systems. Six separate break-out discussions were held on each of the above topics. The approach adopted involved the setting of a ‘vision statement’ for the topic, followed by the discussion around the actions and challenges in achieving this vision statement by 2030. A keynote session also preceded the break-out discussions. The keynote was conducted as a conversation with two international experts on the topic of the AKIS; Ms. Inge Van Oost, DG Agri European Commission; and Prof. Dr. Andrea Knierim, University of Hohenheim, Germany. The objective of the keynote session was to introduce the AKIS to the participants and to explore how the AKIS in Ireland compares to other countries, and to understand the policy and regulatory instruments that are in place now and into the future to support the development of the AKIS.235238239240241242243244245248249250251Creating an effective AKIS is a significant challenge in the context of the wide diversity of knowledge and actors involved. Developing more sustainable food systems requires many elements to be connected in a cohesive and collaborative way in order to make progress across all of the Actions Tracks identified. The discussion highlighted that we do not know precisely what we need in the future in terms of information, innovations, etc. However, we can be sure that we will be required to continually adapt our Food Systems, and the ability to have a structure in place by way of a well-functioning AKIS, can help ensure that we have the capability to adapt to emerging challenges. We cannot depend on traditional top-down information flows. We need to adopt a more ‘multi-actor’ approach in problem solving, innovating and implementing new practices. The development of an effective AKIS is well recognised and supported within the policy framework as the need for faster delivery of utilisable information, practices and technologies to end-users continues to increase. Challenges within Food systems are becoming more complex, and require faster and well-integrated solutions. Amongst the initiatives currently supported by policy are the Operational Groups within the European Innovation Partnership (EIP) network. Studies that evaluated and compared the AKIS across countries have identified that Ireland as well as other countries such as Austria do already have a strong and integrated AKIS when compared to some other countries. However, the discussion highlighted the need to continue to build on this. Areas of development should include: a) widening the reach to farmers beyond those currently engaged with public and private advisory services; b) broadening our understanding of the AKIS to be wider than just agriculture to include a more inclusive engagement of rural areas, communities and citizens; and c) utilising more ‘multi-actor’ approaches in order to improve collaborations and connections to provide innovations and solutions. A key overall outcome of the discussion was a recognition that ideas and solutions can arise from people within any branch of the AKIS. The challenge for the AKIS is to be able to provide an inclusive platform whereby ideas can be connected to the capacity to develop these ideas and innovations into actions.236238239240241242243244245248249250251DISCUSSION TOPIC 1: “An inclusive AKIS which bridges science and offers appropriate knowledge support for the diverse agri-food rural actors”. Everyone recognised that we are not yet where we need to be in terms of a diverse and inclusive AKIS. Key actions arising from the discussion included: Key Actions:  Integrating the whole farm family rather than just focusing on the one, usually patriarchal, landowner. This can be done by integrating women and young farmers through discussion groups, KT consultations, and recognition on correspondence related to the farm. The farming media can play a significant role here in reversing the usually male-dominated stereotype. There is a need to focus on integrating women more for future resilience and young farmers for generational renewal and innovation.  Need to dispel misinformation and bring all members of the chain, including consumers, together so the context is known, trust is built and knowledge sharing increased and consistent across the chain. This would strengthen the networks within the AKIS. Further mapping is needed to identify who is missing in the AKIS and to be able to demonstrate at a local level a specific AKIS and the actors involved.  Need to engage with the youth from a young age and a lot of work is already ongoing in this area (for example, Food Buddies at national school level). However, divergence emerged where where secondary school level is where the messaging of agriculture can be lost, with an example emerging of secondary school teachers not wanting Agricultural science or any integration of Agriculture in their school because of their perception of its destructive nature. This needs to be addressed.  There is a time lag for young farmers from when they complete their education to actually getting the farm – so additional professional training is needed here to bridge this gap.  Knowledge sharing remains the biggest challenge, particularly from private consultants who feel they are not getting enough information to disseminate from research and demonstration farms – these links need to be strengthened to build and strengthen links within the AKIS. Key Challenges:  Knowledge sharing remains a big challenge between AKIS actors, consumers and consistent messaging but there is a cohort of farmers that do not want to engage (not specifically age related) – how do we reach these?  Need for more co-operation and collaboration across the chain and the AKIS: Building trust and transparency takes time – how to do this?  The AKIS focuses solely on agriculture but it does encompass everything rural (the ARKIS) – we must not forget the bigger picture e.g. rural development and the role of the LEADER programme in supporting rural communities & on-farm diversification.  There needs to be respect in terms of the farming community and their own knowledge. They are not just vessels looking for information - they have their own tacit knowledge, which is valuable and must be treated accordingly.  Young farmers are most likely to be innovative but how do we promote generational renewal and succession planning to get the land into their hands? Can we use the Rural Development programme?  Veterinary services can be more recognised in terms of contribution to the value chain. There is scope for more knowledge transfer using evidence-based research within this area. The AKIS currently identifies them more as a service provider, but their role knowledge transfer can be strengthened and more recognised.  Curriculums at school level are perceived as old and need to be updated – to include the whole food system, rural communities and the AKIS.236238239240241242243244245248249250251DISCUSSION TOPIC 2: “The AKIS attracts talented people who hold the relevant attributes, skills and ambition, into exciting rewarding careers. These talents will continue to transform our food systems.” Summary Feedback: People who move into a career in agriculture are personally motivated by this and are potentially more aligned to the work they do than possibly in other careers. Therefore it is fair to conclude that most people who move into a career in agriculture want to stay in it. The group felt that a career in agriculture is attractive, exciting, flexible, progressive but that it can also be very challenging, pressurised and political. High application numbers for graduate programmes was highlighted as an example of the high demand that can arise from people seeking roles in the sector. The group agreed that depending on the role you play in the sector, there can be less flexibility and pressure to have a sustainable income. In professional roles, participants agreed that roles are very diverse with many streams to work in. The group agreed that not just the skills and qualifications are important for talented people to excel and contribute meaningfully to the sector, but also the attributes and value system of the people. Workshop participants described a career today in agriculture as “good”. It has many positive features as well as some elements that need to be improved. Greater diversity & inclusion in the sector is required, better movement of talent across the AKIS and we need to continue our efforts to create clear career pathways for all the professional levels. There is a requirement for all personnel to keep up-skilling and we need to brand a career in agriculture as one where continuous professional development is the norm. Pay rates and income levels were discussed, and while participants viewed the remuneration for professional posts as good, income levels at farm level is obviously very challenging. Participants viewed that we need to promote the opportunity to join the sector at various life stages, this is a unique selling point. The group were critical of the bottlenecks that exist within the corporate sphere for women getting through the glass ceiling. At a secondary education level the group shared disappointing experiences of the lack of knowledge of career guidance to the opportunities within the sector and also to the poor offering of agricultural science in some schools, particularly all girls schools. The group offered a number of actions to improve or address the issues summarised above. A career in agriculture needs a re-branding and better profiling in schools, with parents and society at large. Many actions can be taken such as use of national TV media and also making better use of profiling the positives of a career in agri-food through social media. Short term improvements can be made by greater use of networks, this will help to build collaborations and also help with diversity. In the short and medium term we can also influence the agriculture curriculum towards the future skills that the sector requires (technology, change management, collaboration skills, managing people, marketing, finance and more). In the longer term the actors within the AKIS need to build career structure which will facilitate greater mobility, both across the sector within a country as well as across international boundaries. We need to encourage graduates to have a multi-stream of education (Ag + ICT, Ag + Marketing, Ag + Accountancy, etc.) as these hybrid graduates is what the sector needs to expand sustainably. Improvements are required to make longer term cultural changes across the sector – the sector is still quite male dominated with stereotypes that need to be challenged. The sector needs more diversity of thinking and practice in order to continue to attract a diverse talent pool.236238239240241242243244245248249250251DISCUSSION TOPIC 3: “The AKIS should provide effective training and skills, development opportunities to enable the agri-food sector to develop sustainably”. This group discussed the aspects required to provide effective training and skills development opportunities to enable the agri-food sector to develop sustainably. There was a clear consensus from the group that sustainability in the Agri-food sector has environmental, economic, social and people elements to it. In order for the AKIS to support progress on all of these elements, every AKIS actor will need some level of training or upskilling to assist farmers or producers. The AKIS must respond to the training needs of the industry. Further and higher education and training providers need to continue to include production agriculture and sustainable production practices in their programmes as core elements. It is important to recognise the need to follow on with a structured CPD programme that builds on sustainable practices. Approaches as to how less intensive farmers/producers can achieve greater efficiency from existing resources should be a new focus area. Formal and informal education and training content is very often informed by relevant research. Research policy needs to include sufficient focus on areas that will help farmers/producers to see the benefits (economic, environmental, social and people) of sustainable farming practices. The group expressed the view that some members of the AKIS such as manufacturers of farm inputs might have the potential to influence progress on environmental sustainability in particular. The group acknowledged that there may be challenges in getting a shared objective in some elements of sustainability. Education and training has a key communication role to play in achieving these shared AKIS wide objectives. The following actions were proposed to achieve an impact in this area:  Training and continual upskilling is required for all AKIS actors. The design of this training needs to be tailored to include the role that the participant can play in achieving the shared objectives around sustainable food systems.  Undergraduate training in the agri-food sector should still have a focus on production as well as an added focus on sustainability. Sustainability is a life-long learning area, and there should be an expectation that CPD will have a role throughout the career of all AKIS actors.  Farmer / producer continuous professional development in particular should be structured so that there is a progression in terms of learning. There should be mechanism to record training completed by farmers as part of this overall structure.  The group identified a gap in the current AKIS skillset or knowledge base. AKIS actors that support farmers / producers should be upskilled if required to help less intensive farmer/producers to use existing resources more effectively. This includes an ability to communicate about sustainability in a supportive and positive manner.  Formal and informal education and training content is very often informed by relevant research. Research policy needs to include sufficient focus on areas that will help farmers/producers to see the benefits (economic, environmental, social and people) of sustainable farming practices, including a new focus on efficient use of resources by less intensive producers. Dissemination of this research is key, and must be communicated so that it is applicable at farm level.  Research plays an important role in informing training and skills development. Research policy needs to include sufficient focus on sustainable farming practices. Dissemination of research messages is key, and must be communicated so that it is applicable at farm level.236238239240241242243244245248249250251DISCUSSION TOPIC 4: “By 2030 the AKIS should be empowered by the adoption of digital and data-driven tools and technologies” Major Focus The focus of this discussion was to establish measures that could be undertaken to strengthen and empower the Agricultural Knowledge Innovation System in Ireland through the adoption of digital and data-driven tools and technologies. Main Findings A Digital Roadmap, developed using a multi-actor collaborative process and with the necessary resources, will be required along if Ireland’s AKIS is to become more digitally enabled. This Digital Roadmap will need high-level coordination if it is to be successful. This will be important given the ambitious digital policy that the EU has embarked upon. A fundamental requirement for any digital strategy is to ensure a high quality broadband infrastructure is in place throughout the country – without this, the digital divide will grow wider over time. It was clear from the discussion that digital solutions must be value driven and offer clear benefits to the end user whether it be improving environmental sustainability, time saving, increasing profitability, improving traceability, improving transparency of value distribution along the supply chain, reducing the burden of compliance with regulations or improved lifestyle. The best way to ensure long-term buy-in and trust from the end user is to develop digital solutions in collaboration with the end users using proven co-design methodologies. The group felt that there were enormous opportunities for different systems to communicate with each other particularly with the advent of technologies such as Application Programme Interfaces (API’s). Also the need to combine datasets was highlighted throughout the discussion. Actors across the AKIS need to be upskilled in the area of digital including farmers, advisors and other key actors. Farm advisors in particular should be highly digitally literate in order to support the transition to digital and act as proponents of digital. Users should be segmented based on their digital literacy. Farmers could be segmented based on age, size of farm or enterprise. Farmers can play a vital role in promoting digital and could act as digital coaches to other farmers. The discussion also highlighted the need for simplification of the array of apps and services available to the agricultural community. The concept of a trusted library of apps was proposed during the discussion. The group agreed that a lot of awareness building was needed across the AKIS and one way to address this was to established a Digital Showcase Farm that would demonstrate the latest technologies in place and could potentially act as a test bed. Financial incentives are required where capital investment in hardware is required. There is an opportunity for the agricultural investment scheme, which is operated by the Department of Agriculture Food and the Marine, to be expanded to support investments in digital at a farm level. The group identified a number of challenges/tensions: • Some farmers are defensive • Many enterprises are limited by income • Technology scares some farmers • Farmers don’t always trust processors There are opportunities from engaging with the open source community that should be exploited. In addition, digital has a lot to offer in terms of carbon accounting – Block chain technology may have a role to play here. In conclusion, there was a very positive outlook about the potential that digital and data-driven tools had to offer. Trust amongst actors was deemed to be one of the most important ingredients if AKIS-wide solutions are to be developed. This could be achieved through better co-ordination and meaningful collaboration to ensure the development of tools that present real value to end users.236238239240241242243244245248249250251DISCUSSION TOPIC 5: “AKIS encourages ever greater innovation throughout the Food System. Innovation diffuses seamlessly, rapidly becoming practise and contributes to economic, social and environmental sustainability.” Introduction/Key points: Innovations will prosper where a benefit is achieved. Benefits are often not exclusively monetary (price rise, cost reduction), as other benefits such as more efficiency, work/life balance, etc., are also important. Impediments to innovation by farmers can be actual, or perceived. Early support is important; waiting until an innovation is proven will mean many will be abandoned too soon. Innovations are learning opportunities even where they fail in the short term. This applies to originators and also first-time implementers. Innovations should resonate right along the Food Innovation System chain. Currently there are innovation ‘silos’, with little communication to others in the chain. Fairness is important. Innovations should yield benefits for farmers, processors and consumers. Actions:  Government and EU could accelerate the use of new technologies: e.g. by paying for soil samples and interpretation of results.  Increase the number of ‘agents’ supporting farmers. Improve the links between those who are conducting research and those implementing it. Research should take its first impetus from those who will ultimately apply the findings. Who needs to be involved: Farm families and consumers are key. Consumers are often unaware of good things happening on farms and are unaware of the value of quality food. Farmers and advisors are best placed to make decisions at farm level, particularly process/procedural innovations. The traditional top down approach less successful. A range of perspectives should be embraced, including sceptics. Support bodies, DAFM, Enterprise Ireland are important. Implementing actions:  Communication must be tailored to the audience.  We need a system to capture good ideas – and disseminate these good stories.  Adopt a flexible approach with different solutions to address any identified challenge…there cannot be just one answer.  There is a difference between established and ‘first time’ innovators – by supporting first time innovators, they will get a taste for innovation and do more of it.  Mentoring is important – e.g. Innovation agents etc.  But, some innovators may fear loss of Intellectual property. Potential Impact  Innovation will convert ideas into products and jobs.  Push/pull innovation – from both farmers and consumers – can generate social licence to continue with innovation.  Greater focus within the food system and prioritisation of areas of expertise – where will we be in the future? What are the new areas we will win in? Informed risk taking needs to be encouraged. For example farmers or contractors may have to invest in new/different equipment. This requires support for this type of investment, in addition to research. Use new media channels. Farmers can be reached directly with new ideas innovations using Social Media. Farmers will act on these communications. Multiple approaches must be used. However, given that everyone is busy, so there is a need to be careful with people’s time, highlighting the importance of the “quality rather than quantity” approach.236238239240241242243244245248249250251DISCUSSION TOPIC 6: “By 2030 the AKIS should be fast and effective in transferring ideas, tools and technologies to end-users” Actions:  Create a central information hub that is easily accessible to farmers – so much information in many locations.  Information has to be accurate, verified and independent.  Collaboration from all actors needed – farmers, advisory, policy, industry, farm organisations, agricultural, education colleges.  On extensive farms profit is not the total driver of farmers – great pride in farmers to leave the farm in a better place for the next generation – but there was unanimous agreement that CAP supports would have to be in place for a large group of part-time farmers.  New technologies that are put in place to tackle biodiversity/climate change/water quality that have a capital cost should be supported financially.  On intensive full time farms, profit is the main driver. New technologies will have to be supported by all stakeholders to communicate the environmental sustainability message to farmers.  The ASSAP programme was referenced as a good example of successful collaboration between all stakeholders.  Concerns were raised by Private consultants that they do not have the same access to up to date knowledge and information as Teagasc does. More formal structures (e.g. Memorandums of Understanding) are required to address this.  Agreement within group that demonstration, discussion groups, farm walks should be further supported in new CAP Policy.  Support for farmers to develop IT skills and purchase new technologies  Methane reduction will be a key driver going forward – support for ruminant methane reduction research and rollout if successful.  Research should be fast and reliable but filtered to communicate a straightforward practical message to farmers.  AKIS will include blended learning – zoom and on-farm one-to-one.  Farmers will put into practice new technologies if they understand the benefits of same to all stakeholders – they have the solutions and are not the problem.  Interdisciplinary Research and more focused to communicate with the hard to reach farmers – the top 1/3 attend all meetings and don’t need info – how do we engage the other 2/3 that don’t attend/engage. Implementing Actions  Encourage all farmers to attend farm walks, demonstration events, open days, discussion groups – use agricultural advisory services (public & private)  Exemplar farmers in local areas – local demonstration farms (every county), demonstrate science to farmers so they will understand better and put into practice.  Group agreement to communicate with influencers of farmers (e.g. vets, agri-adviser, co-ops etc.  Support individual farm sustainability plans and successful schemes need to be financially attractive to farmers to participate. Impact: • Currently farmers get 18% of dividend from the value chain – this is below EU average of 24% and needs to increase for Irish farm families. • Environmental and financial sustainability – farmers must be financially supported to manage their farms (e.g. changes in practice to reduce N such as multi species/reseeding costs). • Animal welfare - grass fed is positive communication. • Clear messaging to farmers – prevention rather than cure (AMR). • Positive perception of farmers – currently feeling everything is being laid at the farmer’s door. • Make farming attractive for next generation. Supporting Changes • Utilise easy to use technology. • Prioritise multi-actor disciplinary research. • Encourage more private consultants to join Agricultural Consultants Association (ACA). • Communicate clearly with farmers. • Clear policy direction and collaboration with all stakeholders. • Clear local messages. What are the challenges and how can we manage them? • Methane from ruminant and increased research required • Do farmers and advisors fully understand climate challenge? • Getting engagement form hard to reach farmers • Data governance • Age and engaging younger farmers to adopt new technology • Profitability of main enterprises • Upskilling advisors • Translating policy to practice • Consumer perception • Scheme administration237238239240241242243244245248249250251A number of areas of divergence were identified during the discussions, that are summarised in the following points:  How to reach all farmers is a significant challenge. Many farmers are clients of public advisory services (i.e. Teagasc), while more are clients of private advisors, and more have little or no engagement with any advisor. More collaboration and coordination of the public and private advisory services is needed, as is more inclusivity of a wider pool of advisors. The potential role of other actors (e.g. veterinarians) in providing advice to farmers can also be overlooked and should be considered more within the challenge of how all farmers can be reached with information.  Farmers can feel isolated/misunderstood within a perception of an ‘us and them’ divide.  Competition between large food organisations and farmers, and value of ‘real’ food and processed food. Innovating can be hard while also meeting the market needs.  Regulation/lack of funding can hinder innovation and adoption.  Insufficient Entrepreneurial culture in some organisations.  Intellectual property rights are important for some innovators.

2021-06-01 19:45:34204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/6187/203

17701556314010969

- Adherence to the principles was explained and underlined in the invitation to attend. - Discussion topic and stakeholder grouping strongly linked to all Action Tracks and involving finance lever leads (commit to Summit). - Used facilitators template to focus discussions on relevant Summit issues, briefed facilitators on approach, including to steer discussions towards a focus on actions, not problems (act with urgency) - Ensured participation of a variety of stakeholders around the main actors (public development banks), including those with potentially divergent opinions by reaching out to a very wide range of partners (inclusivity) - Ensured facilitators were knowledgeable, independent and well-briefed on the process and objectives (recognizing complexity, respect)- Multiple stakeholders represented (public development banks, private capital, research institutes, country representatives) - Working Group discussions focused on outcomes, solutions, concrete actions.

Yes

234240241243244245246248This Independent Dialogue sought to spur discussion around the following key issue: how can Public Development Banks (PDBs), as a unique group of development actors, use their specific public mandates, counter-cyclical roles, tools and resources, to best finance the transition towards more sustainable, inclusive food systems. Convened by IFAD – lead for the Food Systems Summit’s Action Track 4 on ‘Advancing Equitable Livelihoods’ – and Finance in Common (a PDB initiative), and curated by the Smallholder and Agri-SME Finance and Investment Network (SAFIN), the event followed the convening of the Finance in Common Summit – the first global gathering of PDBs in November 2020. It built on ongoing discussions and convening of PDBs with a mandate in rural development and agricultural finance through a Finance in Common Working Group on Financing Sustainable Food Systems, convened by IFAD, which aims to share knowledge and good practice. It brought together PDBs as well as other major actors in the financial ecosystem (private capital, MDBs, research institutions), to identify potential game-changing initiatives that can be implemented in partnership with others (around 130 participants in total). The session was opened by Johann Swinnen, Director-General of IFPRI (co-lead of the Food Systems Summit Finance lever), followed by a panel focused on innovative approaches applied by PDBs to generate interest, engagement, and inspire out-of-the-box thinking. A series of break-out groups discussed four priority issues where there is considerable scope for innovation and impact on the part of PDBs, as highlighted through a joint statement of a ‘PDB agriculture cluster’ released in the lead-up to the Finance in Common Summit: - Mobilizing sustainable investment capital from the market: PDBs as issuers of “green” investment products for agriculture - Sustainable models to reach last mile rural financial clients - Digitally-enabled innovations for increased PDB sustainability and outreach across food systems - Aligning the financial ecosystem for food system transformation: effective partnership models Facilitators for each session were selected due to their strong expertise in the sector and were briefed before-hand on process and the need to focus on concrete, actionable solutions (ie vs. discussing problems).235240241242243244245248PDBs have the mandates, positioning and tools to play a more catalytic role in accelerating the transition towards more inclusive, sustainable food systems. As public bodies, they are able to convene diverse stakeholders and set and promote the adoption of shared standards to accelerate investment. As banks with social impact mandates, they can leverage concessional financing and specific tools to attract investment to the sector (eg guarantees, blending instruments, concessional financing for early-stage innovations, etc). Their impact can be maximized by being targeted about the way in which these tools are deployed (e.g. to crowd-in private sector financing, not crowd it out), by intervening in the segments of the economy where they have the greatest comparative advantage (e.g. in de-risking private capital, in serving bankable clientele, etc.), and by ensuring their own robust governance. There is significant scope for PDBs to mobilize additional finance to invest in agriculture and food economies, to channel it in ways that incentivize sustainable practices, and to invest in and promote innovations that accelerate sustainable practices and help more efficiently reach ‘last mile’ rural clients. There is a particular opportunity to better mobilize private finance (e.g. through issuance of green bonds, but also concessional finance (e.g. climate finance), and to channel it to fund and incentivize sustainable practices across food systems. PDBs be catalytic in addressing some of the main roadblocks to doing this at scale in the food and agriculture sector (e.g. by addressing lack of harmonized standards for what constitutes ‘green’ finance). PDBs can leverage their deep reach and networks to bring together the right actors and to accelerate good practice and innovation, including digital innovation, and help shape the policy environment in order to improve outreach to those most in need of financing (‘last mile’). In order to take advantage of this possibility, several proposals for action were made, including: - Convening of a coalition of PDBs to share knowledge and experiences, including, but not limited to, mobilization and application of green finance in the food and agriculture sector. Such a group could help to set and promote the adoption of shared standards for the measurement and verification of what constitutes ‘green’ finance in the sector. - Launch of a ‘Solutions Lab’ or ‘Innovation Facility’ to help identify, develop, and finance innovations, including digital platforms developed by private sector partners. Activities could include standard-setting and promotion, early-stage investment in new innovations, in partnership with others (e.g. venture investing community), and support for mechanisms that connect producers to markets using blockchain-based payment systems. Such systems could incorporate payments for ecosystems services or externalities. - Leveraging PDBs’ convening power to launch partnership round-tables around specific regions or value chains to enhance coordination amongst actors.2362402412422432442452482491. Mobilizing sustainable investment capital from the market - Objective is: (1) to mobilize private investment in agriculture (PDBs as issuers of green bonds); and (2) redeploy that capital through green financial products to incentivize best practices on the ground and de-risk investments. - This requires: (1) technical capacity and a package of clearly defined products; (2) standardized, simplified approaches to identify, track, and validate impact; (3) better understanding amongst investors of the risk profile of green agricultural investments; (4) risk-sharing vehicles (e.g. blending finance); (5) incentives to justify the higher price of green products (e.g. tax breaks); and (6) favourable policy and regulatory environments. - PROPOSAL  Coalition of PDBs to join capabilities and share experiences as: (1) issuers of bonds, setting common targets, rules and understanding; and (2) development and issuance of integrated services and green financing instruments (e.g. insurance, advisory/extension services, etc,) to incentivize best practices and de-risk investments. Leverage group to develop clear, shared taxonomy of what is measured as green within the sector.2362402412422432442452512. Sustainable models to reach last mile rural financial clients - PDBs can play a more catalytic role in attracting investors to serve ‘last mile’ rural clients, by: o focusing operational activities at the wholesale level (attracting and channelling concessional finance and technical support to rural financial institutions, who in turn target the last mile); o helping to improve the policy environment; o improving digital and non-digital infrastructure (e.g. piloting digital solutions – such as automation, bulking of functions – that can improve rural financial institutions’ efficiency; and o improving their own governance to enhance efficiency and performance. - PROPOSAL  Establishment of a ‘solutions lab’ to support innovation, digitalization, and financing of rural financial institutions. The objective would be to design, deliver and trigger innovation, help rural financial institutions learn from one another, and improve access to value chain specific information and funds to de-risk and increase investments in ‘last mile’ agricultural actors. The ultimate goal would be to lower costs of and increase access to financial services, including savings, among clients and communities in rural areas.2362402412422432442452503. Digitally-enabled innovations for increased PDB sustainability and outreach - PDBs have specific role and advantage in incentivizing and rolling out digital innovations: o Convening power (bring together diverse actors, establish common standards); o Networks with TA providers and private capital to accelerate financing of novel solutions; o Opportunity to operate in early-stage/venture ecosystems (though they currently lack familiarity), through separate funds or as an ‘honest broker’ in these ecosystems. o Connections with concessional financing (esp climate), which can be integrating into pay-for-results models, enabled by digital technologies (e.g. blockchain). o Ability to invest in expansion and adoption of proven digital technologies to improve productivity, better link smallholders to high-value purchasers, and to help lead the digital transformation of different value chains. - PROPOSAL  Facility to accelerate deployment of private-sector generated digital platforms for the development of value chains, composed of the following features: o Leverage PDBs’ convening role to promote common standards, taxonomies, and interoperable protocols across different digital platforms. Non-reimbursable funds would be required to develop and adopt these standards across the industry. o A fund to accelerate development of early-stage digital innovations in agriculture, in partnership with leading venture funders to provide required expertise. o Digital marketplace to link producers with global markets, with payments and documentation of climate and social results facilitated through blockchain. This platform would also serve as a mechanism to pay for externalities associated with different projects or companies, to the extent that these externalities could be credibly booked on the blockchain infrastructure. o A competitive open market for advisory services and technical assistance, linked with vanguard agtech technologies, based on a multi-donor facility. This open market would open advisory services to agtech companies who would be able to compete with established advisory and technology providers. To the extent that results can be credibly booked (based on the standards developed above), the open market would also serve as a quality rating for different providers.2362402412422442452482494. Aligning the financial ecosystem for food system transformation: effective partnership models - Partnerships should be structured around the expertise of each actor, with PDBs focusing on bankable clients, and with donors and TA providers focusing on building capacities and addressing local market failures. There is a particular need to: o Embed incentives in investment policy objectives of PDBs/DFIs to avoid crowding out of other potential investors. o Design TA to support pipeline development and have clear exit strategies. o Over the longer term, build skills and strengthen the role of farmers’ organizations in structuring value chains and improving access to capital. - PROPOSAL  Knowledge hubs at global/regional levels to share learnings and good practices of PDBs based on operations and approaches to value chain development.  Partnership roundtable discussions at sectoral or national level to enhance coordination amongst PDBs and other actors237244245248Since discussions focused on solutions, no clear areas of divergence emerged. However, the performance of PDBs in specific areas (e.g. depending on where they operate within the spectrum) and the degree to which they may crowd-in, vs crowding out other investments, could be considered an area for further discussion.

2021-06-01 21:21:49205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/11119/57

666244557471

The overall focus for the Dialogue was how to establish pathways for game-changing innovations necessary for sustainable food system transformations with the purpose to contribute to the success of the 2021 UNFSS by providing input and showcasing examples that can lead to game-changing pathways. A large number of international participants representing governments, business, organisations, academia, civil society as well as university students representing the next generation of sustainability leaders, worked together to define actions necessary to transform the food systems. The discussion groups focussed on creating credible pathways thus recognizing the complexity of the challenges within each topic. The Miró-tool was utilized to structure the discussion enabling every participant to contribute on an equal basis. Each discussion group was chaired by a relevant external competent authority and the game-changers discussed were science and evidence based ensuring complementarity as well as trust.We sought a broad range of voices to the dialogue in order to promote an open and frank discussion. It is the general consensus that the complexity of the discussion and the challenges we face are multi-faceted and hence must be addressed from a multitude of angles. By providing the Dialogue with a large model of communication, the discussions encouraged every participant to voice their expertise and opinion on these complex matters. No matter the stakeholder, the entirety of the Dialogue was rooted in strong evidence-based and scientific understandings on the matters discussed.In order to fully appreciate the Principles of Engagement, we would propose to invest the appropriate amount of time on developing, not only content, but format as well. We have found that structuring the discussions appropriately has been key to the success of the Danish National Food Systems Dialogue. More specifically, the backcasting tool that was utilized during the dialogue was instrumental for the succes. Additionally, preparing participants as well as speakers properly was of equal importance to the success.

NoA backcasting exercise was used as a collaborative tool to guide the working sessions and be an aid in developing pathways-to-uptake for game-changing solutions, and to describe how selected specific game-changing solutions can be moved towards reaching its potential positive impact(s) by 2030. Figure 1. Backcasting exercise overview (MISSING, SEE ATTACHMENT) The backcasting exercise was chosen because it is a useful method to understand the what/when/how of moving a solution towards uptake and serves as a starting point to help develop concrete actionable steps and find creative strategies to overcome barriers. The dialogue was held around four themes (sustainable and healthy diets, food loss and waste, Antimicrobial resistance and deforestation) with 2 discussion groups per theme. The vision for the ideal scenario for the game-changing solutions to be discussed under each theme was pre-defined by the facilitators and was shared with the participants at the beginning of the working session. After being presented with the vision, the participants were prompted to come back to the present and 1) define key steps, 2) define important barriers, 3) suggest creative approaches/resolutions to those barriers. This process was intended to help the participants to work collaboratively on creative steps and solve barriers to reach the vision. The back-casting exercise was meant as an inspiration for the facilitators on how to steer the working sessions for a concrete pathway/outcome. Since the session was held virtually we used a Miro board to keep track of the discussions. During the discussion, participants were also encouraged to write post-its on the Miro boards to capture all voices and opinions. Each breakout group had a specific Miro board filled with the predefined 2030 vision of the game-changing solution. See example below: MISSING, SEE ATTACHMENT

234239240242243244246248249251The Danish National Food System Summit Dialogue discussed pathways to unleash the power of food to deliver progress on the SDGs through game-changing innovations by placing specific emphasis on game-changing innovations in the areas of: ● Food loss and food waste: One third of all food produced globally is lost or wasted in the process from production to consumption. We are producing twice the amount of food needed, while too many people are starving. Food lost and wasted accounts for an estimated 8 pct. of greenhouse gases emitted. A reduction of food loss and waste can play a significant role in reducing the environmental footprint. This requires a shift in consumption patterns and actions of all, from food producers to food supply-chain stakeholders, food industries, retailers and consumers. ● Healthy and sustainable diets: Malnutrition in one form or another affects every country, whether it be undernutrition, micronutrient deficiencies, or overweight and obesity and some countries are struggling with multiple issues. Food Based Dietary Guidelines (FBDGs) can be powerful drivers for healthy and sustainable food consumption and production. Private-public partnerships have the potential to support and accelerate sustainable development. ● Prudent use of antimicrobials and prevention of resistance: Antimicrobial resistance is a great threat to health, society, and economies worldwide. Over- and misuse of antimicrobials in many aspects of food production accelerates the global threat. Prevention of antimicrobial resistance is essential to ensure safe food for all and effective antimicrobials for the future. This also requires prudent use of antimicrobials in food production and monitoring of antimicrobial resistance. ● Deforestation-free value chains: Deforestation and forest degradation is closely connected to production of agricultural commodities. Ensuring deforestation-free value chains requires action from many actors at all levels in order to ensure the benefits for biodiversity, the fight against climate change and needs of local communities and indigenous peoples who depend on forests. Countries around the world must address illegal and legal deforestation and ensure that the production of all agricultural commodities is undertaken responsibly and deforestation-free.235239240242243244246248249251Main findings across discussion topics It is necessary to establish strong partnerships between government, local partners, businesses, farmers and investors, and education. Multi stakeholder dialogues and needs analysis are necessary to understand motivations and needs of all stakeholders. Multi-sector partnerships can facilitate transfer of essential know-hows and ensure stakeholder participation, commitment and co-ownership of results. Cultural and behavioral change is a prerequisite and necessitates long-term personal, political and national commitment in order to succeed. For the necessary global impact, we need local action, regional consensus, and international commitment. One solution cannot solve the global challenges and ensure sustainable food systems. Many different remedies need to be utilized throughout the whole global food value chain. Main findings also included a need for a holistic approach to food systems and avoidance of silo thinking. Additionally, there is also a need for education and higher focus on science-based data on food. Finally, concrete action points have included: ● Make the business case ● Mobilize and motivate all stakeholders ● Shared ownership of the problem up and down the supply chain ● Appropriate prioritization by governments as being key to farmer development and growth ● Giving incentives and tools236239240242243244246248249251The game-changers and visions discussed in the eight discussion groups. Food Loss and Food Waste • Game-changer: Sustainable cold chains • Vision 1: Sustainable cold chain solutions are connected, bundled and up-scaled so that food loss between farmers’ fields to markets does not exceed 10 pct. • Vision 2: Community-ran cold centres and the rise of on-demand pick-up and delivery services for farmers and aggregation centres coupled with the wide adoption of pay-as-you-go model, has transformed the perishable food industry in Sub-Saharan Africa by 2030. Healthy and Sustainable Diets • Game-changer: Food-based dietary guidelines • Vision 1: Majority of Consumers are regularly enjoying nutritious and sustainable meals / foods by applying food based dietary guidelines at home. • Vision 2: All menus in schools follow the food based dietary guidelines and school food sourcing policies follow environmentally and socially conscious principles. Prudent use of antimicrobials and prevention of resistance • Game-changer: Use of surveillance data as a leaver/tool to reduce usage of antimicrobials and prevent resistance • Vision: Prudent and reduced use of antimicrobials in animals to limit human exposure to resistance through consumption of food. Deforestation-free value chains • Game-changer: Integrated supply chain approach • Vision: Combining efforts at global, national and local levels to work systemically with actors that affect the production of and demand for commodities as well as the financing of their value chains has great potential to improve their sustainability. Outcomes from the eight discussion topics are summarized below.236239Sum-up from Food Loss and Waste - Team 1 Vision: Sustainable cold chain solutions are connected, bundled and up-scaled so that food loss between farmers’ fields to markets does not exceed 10 percent. Summery 1. Building on trust and interaction solutions are key - e.g. organizational structures, accountability, long-term contracts 2. Think up and down the supply chain and back (creating demand) and mobilize and motivate all stakeholders, e.g. public procurements as connecting drivers of change, increase capacity and awareness along the supply chain 3. Make the business case and measure loss and related costs and benefits, but understand whom you are measuring for, and on metrics that will drive change. If cost of reducing loss is greater than value of the loss, change will be difficult 4. Some technological breakthroughs/scale-ups are critical, particularly to ensure environmental sustainability - e.g. solar empowered cold chains, adaption of rental storage places for small scale farmers 5. Increasing access to logistics and solutions themselves especially by smaller producers and distributors -- this could be done by creatively aggregating resources and minimizing need for individual investments, e.g. maximizing collective storage, cold storage rental on small scale Steps Making the case / incentivizing improvements in waste reduction ● Make the business case. ● Mobilize and motivate all stakeholders ● Shared ownership of the problem up and down supply chain ● Appropriate prioritisation by governments as being key to farmer development and growth ● Giving incentives and tools Building trust and awareness / stakeholder buy-in ● Organize farmers to bring scale to infrastructure - gaining trust, making sure to include key stakeholders (women, families) ● Work with attitude and trust toward joining new value chains ● Education, training, awareness of the benefits including economic for farmers ● Engage with women to describe need and mitigate negative impacts ón joining cold chain infrastructure ● Sector to sector collaborations/knowledge sharing across countries Mapping logistics and benchmarking / Increasing access, capacity & communication across supply chain ● Creation of an accessible map of cold chain ● Benchmarking to know what best practice looks like Increasing access to logistics and solutions themselves ● Access to flexible, affordable cold storage solutions - small farmers don’t have capital to invest in their own cold storage necessarily (so rental by hour/day, etc. is useful) ● Logistics support for timing harvest to storage ● Vehicles supplied with cold storage capacity ● Aggregating sourcing to drive efficiency ● Support small businesses to run parts of the cold chains236239Sum-up from Food Loss and Waste - Team 2 Vision on sustainable cold chain solutions: Community-ran cold centres and the rise of “uber fresh” like / on-demand pick-up and delivery services for farmers and aggregation centres coupled with the wide adoption of pay-as-you-go model has transformed the perishable food industry in Sub-Saharan Africa by 2030. The steps: The steps to achieve this vision by 2030 were categorized into seven areas of action, each with their barriers and strategies. It is important to mention that despite being organized in a sequential way, following the logic of a value chain, the different categories are very much interlinked and mutually dependent. The categories for action: • Farm-level: Use of improved seeds to ensure the production of quality produce and to apply the cold chain as soon as possible. • Implement an operational model for a functioning cold-chain: Ensure an "unbroken Cold chain" (infrastructure) from farmer to consumer. • Design for community: Understanding the farmers' challenges and finding ways to link them with the aggregators through establishing a business/operational model for participation in community centres. • Make perishable food more accessible to consumers: Make a plan for uptake of perishable foods that are not sold fast enough through for instance, reduced prices in local shops (too good to go) • Digitalization: Ensure digital access for everyone and set up integrated digital solutions that create transparency in the ordering and overview of produce. Could be in the form of an app (too good to go) • Streamline Supply Chain: Maximize the use of resources to create less steps from farmers to consumers • Build Partnerships and Learning from existing best practices: Create trust between the different actors in the system by creating alliances or multi-stakeholder forums Strategies: ● Development of solution preservation methods and/or processing of produce to extend shelf life where cold-chains is not possible. ● Ensure adequate storage ● introduction of cooperative models ● Transformation of knowledge about best practice from farmer to farmer - business to business - consumer to consumer.. transform storytelling - food loss= money loss food preservation=money gained ● Carry out extensive market research and have stronger focus on measuring FLW to identify where to target efforts ● Organize local people (woman!) to find solutions and Invest in digital access for all people ● low-tech low-cost local solutions ● Use of apps in order to have a better strategic integration of the cold chain ● Establish strong partnerships between government, local partners businesses, farmers and investors, education ● multi stakeholder dialogue/needs analysis to understand motivations and needs of all actors ● Multi-sector partnerships and transfer of know-how236239Sum-up from Food Based Dietary guideline - Team 1 Adjusted vision: All menus in schools (nurseries to High School) across the world follow the food based dietary guidelines and school food sourcing policies follow environmentally and socially conscious principles. Ingredients for meals are sourced locally to the greatest extent, and enhanced knowledge of what healthy and sustainable diets are has led to empowering children, schools, parents, and communities to take action. Building on comprehensive school food policy centred around school meals for children (building the children’s life skills and experiences with food). Steps: Divided into 3 areas that are addressed in a coherent/coordinated way Procurement – local sourcing, procurement networks/officers, local farms, wider supply chains – adhere to sustainable principles and ethical treatment of supply chain workers School Context – meals that children will enjoy, curriculum about food and sustainability, teacher trainings, training for the cooks (might be local parents or hired staff), Community – stakeholders and places where children interact – support the experiential learning with food – how children interact with food shapes their experiences/preferences ● Parents ● Retailers ● Other community groups Strategies ● Inclusion and consultation – localizing solutions ● Support wider shared learning – build on what is happening locally but have ways that schools can join larger networks. Local schools to cities to national to global ● Business case – who is going to pay for local meals; what type of taxes/levies might be used to support these programmes. How does school feeding support local economies (local sourcing/local farms). Global commitments for funding of school meals, by introducing a global fund for financing and a “global compact” for school meals236239Sum-up from Food Based Dietary Guideline (FBDG) - Team 2 Adjusted vision: In 2030, the majority of consumers in LMIC contexts are regularly enjoying nutritious and sustainable meals/foods by applying food based dietary guidelines at home. The different steps need to be taken to reach this 2030 vision and the barriers and strategies arising can be categorised in 6 groups. Research consumer behaviour in the specific target context and develop setting-specific FBDGs: It is crucial to develop culturally/socially adapted and population-specific FBDGs. Introduce the FBDGs in a comprehensive and enjoyable manner: Make the FBDGs visually attractive and easily understandable Ensure the local availability and affordability of foods in accord with the FBDGS: Invest in the development and promotion to ensure a large variety of quality protein crops this could be enabled by introducing local production of such crops. Make sure that foods compliant with the FBDGs are the most affordable option. Strategies to enable this should still be identified. Communicate and educate consumers to adopt FBDGs : Develop a clear and creative implementation plan! The beliefs and values need to shift: It is important to inform and inspire consumers where they decide what to eat: in food shops, restaurants etc. Educate consumers but also all the other food system actors such as doctors, nutritionists, farmers. Educate children about the FBDGs and their implications in an ethical way, but simultaneously also conduct massive behaviour change campaigns reaching all consumers. Implement the FBGGs in novel eating models such as communal eating. Educate consumers about “less consumed crops” such as legumes and collaborate with chefs. Take many diverse approaches to nudge consumers in using the FBDG. The best practices of effective nudging should be shared globally (with awareness that effectiveness may vary from one country/region to another). Avoid labelling consumers; focus on the action, not on the identity (e.g. eating a plant based/ green/vegetarian meal, not being a vegetarian/vegan etc.). Implement policy changes and economic tools (tax and subsidies) that will facilitate the uptake of FBDGs and drive the consumer food choices: Could include taxes for ultra-processed foods or environmentally damageable foods or banning food advertising for these foods. Ensuring adequate and informative labelling around the FBDGs. Could also include subsidies for unprocessed, minimally-processed, and processed foods and foods that help mitigate climate degradation. Investigate new ways for consumers to obtain food for example centralized universal food assistance for foods classified as healthy and sustainable (vegetables, fruit, whole grains, legumes). The agricultural policies should reflect dietary guidelines Multisectoral approach to enhance uptake of FBDGs: Strategic partnerships with all actors of the food supply chain and beyond. All sectors should follow the principles behind the FBSGs, from the farmers, food processing industry to the finance sector.236239Sum-up from AMR - Team 1 The Vision was slightly altered, so that it included food but was not limited to food. The discussion was guided by three key elements of the map: steps, barriers and strategies to overcome barriers. The Steps to achieving the vision: Many ideas relating to surveillance of AMR were brought forward along with others with a broader perspective and tested for viability in the group. Cultural change, targeted use of antibiotics, publicizing and sharing data, awareness and the use of AMR heroes together with use of diagnostics were brought forward as possible steps towards the reaching the vision. The Barriers to achieving the vision: Among the discussed barriers were the lack of general knowledge of AMR, the ability to use the data available, the cost of changing behavior for producers, the risk of creating a confrontation between villains and heroes and the availability and affordability of the necessary diagnostic tools. The Strategies to achieve the vision: The solutions included the development of educational programs, benchmarking the use of antibiotics, supporting heroes, creating higher value products with higher profitability and more intensive data analytics and international cooperation. The conclusion was, that there is not one solution that will remedy the risk of antimicrobial resistance. There is no golden bullet. A variety of approaches must be utilized throughout the value chain. Cultural change takes time and patience working hard on all the areas mentioned above. Some of the key points in regards to solutions were: ● Transparency on the use of antibiotics is needed, ● Consumer awareness and thereby demand for food produced with less antibiotics is central ● More surveillance and surveillance data is necessary in order to know where to focus efforts ● Benchmarking of the use of antibiotics and publicizing best practice and profitability stories can facilitate cultural change.236239Sum-up from AMR Team 2 The vison: Prudent and reduced use of antimicrobials in animals to limit human exposure to resistance through consumption of food. The Steps to achieving the vision: There was agreement that everything starts with realizing that there is a problem. Benchmarking and improved surveillance practices (including monitoring of veterinary clinical bacterial pathogens) were highlighted as important nudge factors, while other steps mentioned were: bringing together stakeholders (farmers, authorities, academics) in the solution-development process, showcasing solutions to practitioners, all while describing the impact of AMR and benefits of prudent use of antimicrobials on a variety of levels (financial, farm-economy etc.). The Barriers to achieving the vision: The barriers focused especially on the lack of clear implementation strategies for NAPs, prioritization and short- and long-term target setting, especially in LMICs where surveillance capacity is low and unsustainable, and it is difficult to enforce targets. Other barriers include that farmers and practitioners have limited understanding and data, as well as cultural barriers that slow down behavior change when not properly understood and taken into account. The Strategies to achieving the vision: The solutions included the co-creation of sustainable national surveillance systems, paired with appropriate translation of consumption data into nudges and positive incentives for farmers who use more antimicrobials than average. Information should be spread through the channels that practitioners use (be they mobile, social platforms or local gatherings) within existing networks. AMR interventions should be measurable and context-specific, while involving sociologists, economists and other social scientists to understand what is required for behavior change. The conclusion: Antimicrobial resistance is an issue that needs to be tackled simultaneously from different angles, while ensuring that local practitioners, industry and governments are directly involved in the process. It is essential that surveillance efforts are designed for sustainability and driven/managed by the countries. At the same time, AMR interventions should take into account the effects on practitioners and make it easy for them to adjust their antimicrobial consumption behaviors.236240Sum-up from deforestation-free value chains - Team 1 The vision: Aligning and combining efforts at global, national and local levels to work systemically with actors that affect the production of and demand for commodities as well as the financing of their value chains has great potential to improve their sustainability. Steps to achieve this vision: Clear political targets; strong EU-action to secure a level playing field, e.g. on standards; EU regulation to make consumers, producers, investors responsible; common definitions internationally. Traceability of commodities; targeted dialogue between producer and consumer countries. Provide incentives for forest-rich nations to protect existing forests. Farmer-participative interventions. prices that reflect real value; hold companies and financiers financially and legally accountable for deforestation. Bring all relevant consumer markets into the discussion; change mindsets. Education; create anti-deforestation organ with participation of civil society. Barriers to achieve this vision: Complexity of the issue. Many different stakeholders. Lack of systemic approach – viewing the different challenges in isolation; one-fit-all development approaches; lack of awareness and knowledge. lack of political leadership. Insufficient public support and lack of funding. Lack of enforcement of environmental regulation. Insufficient market regulation in producer and consumer markets; lack of willingness to agree on deforestation free standards. Perverse incentives, subsidies. Lack of incentives to conserve forests; lack of capacity to convene systemic dialogue and multistakeholder processes that handle complex and divergent interests; consumers are used to food being too cheap. Lack of willingness to bear the costs; sustainable food systems will in short-term increase costs of products. After some time, innovation and new technology will reduce prices; deforestation needs to be addressed in a social context; potential issues regarding WTO compatibility; a tax on specific deforestation products is difficult to leverage; feasibility versus impact – easy/cheap solutions do not necessarily drive change. Strategies to reach this vision: Recognition that deforestation is key to reach SDGs and Climate goals; need for a systemic approach. Does not work in isolation; address overconsumption of products through EU regulation and taxation; certification; public-private partnerships that can scale up best practices. Shared commitments; strong due diligence; screening for deforestation risks; change mindsets, less focus on growth; create market incentives (market access, securing resources etc.). Promote and fund sustainable agricultural systems; get “true prices” of products that reflect real costs. Systemic embedded costs and benefits that reflect real costs; set minimum standards for banks / investors to adhere to deforestation-free commodity financing. Requires metrics to quantify “deforestation exposure” for both lending and investment portfolios; important to involve consumers. They have strong impact on production. Pathways: ● Undertake for each target region an initial systems mapping of root causes and barriers (surfaced and hidden) - across production, demand and financing - that have prevented significant progress towards deforestation-free value chains. This analysis must also cover the impact of policies and practices from producing and trading countries. ● Convene and professionally facilitate in producing countries - at both national and subnational levels - an inclusive dialogue that focus on a) enriching and (in)validating the findings from the above system mapping and b) agreeing on key points of leverage for change, across production, demand and financing. ● Evolve this broad dialogue process into effective multi-stakeholder collaboration processes owned by national and local governments that bring together the actors “holding to keys” to these advantage points. Facilitate these processes to define joint strategies and combine efforts towards acting on these levers of changes.236240Sum-up from deforestation-free value chains - Team 2 The vision was rearranged and simplified, so that the headline for the break-out group was the vision for discussion (Deforestation-free value chains). The discussion was guided by three key elements in regards to ensure the vision: involvement, implementation and enforcement. The discussion touched upon all three parts of the map: steps, barriers and strategies to overcome barriers. The Steps: E.g. getting main importers on board, use accountability framework, support and recognize industry voluntary initiatives, engage national and subnational governments. The Barrier: E.g. opposition to change due to current profitability, lack of standards, very low consumer awareness. The Strategies: E.g., Make expansion over degraded / low value areas financially attractive, Ensure at least full legal compliance, Create consumer awareness, More long-term agreements with producers or standard organisations to reduce financial risks, promote agroforestry, strengthen EU trade agreements (sustainability chapters) The conclusion was clear in the sense that there is no easy solution. No easy fix. Many different tools will have to come in to play and focus will have to be at many different aspects and steps along the value chain; and it has to be a long-term perspective. Some of the key points in regards to solutions was: ● Transparency needed, ● Raise consumer awareness, ● Alternatives to expanding agricultural land have to be financially attractive (promote agroforestry, pay farmers to leave forest), ● Use standards and certification, ● Award European farmers for importing soy-free fodder, ● Engage with major traders and importers ● Use trade agreements to ensure stricter requirements for imports237239240242243244246248249251Generally, there was predominantly consensus throughout the discussions at the National Food Systems Dialogue in Denmark. By far most pathways were identified in common collaboration. This was in part a result of the back-casting approach which is based on promoting and facilitating a consensus approach and fosters a constructive dialogue through specifically addressing steps, barriers and strategies to overcome the barriers. The following divergences were registered throughout the discussions in the eight breakout sessions. On food based dietary guidelines divergence in the discussions centred on whether solutions should take a top down or bottom up approach to changing consumptions patterns. Specifically regarding whether change should be initiated through influencing changed consumer behavior or industry/production practices. On food loss and waste, divergences were similarly centred on whether solutions should take a top-down or bottom up approach for ensuring a functional cold-chain. On antimicrobial resistance, the different approaches to solutions were mostly discussions on focus between human and animal antimicrobial resistance as well as on whether the use of data was paramount in making action possible. On deforestation, the differences in the debate gave diverse results on whether solutions should be found in systemic change predominantly through a holistic or a more targeted and specific approach.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/FSD-Official-Feedback-Form-DENMARK.pdfhttps://bfmp.dk/

2021-06-01 21:50:21204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/12778/76799698144194

We consciously chose speakers committed to community development and principles of justice and equity in their work. We committed to multi-stakeholder inclusivity and highlighting the complexity of problems and the solutions. Our dialogues are globally diverse, bring together multiple stakeholders, have multi-faith representation, feature Indigenous voices throughout, and privilege the voices of front line communities.We created a hybrid dialogue that took the core elements of multi- stakeholder, global participants and thought provoking questions and scaled it down . Rather than focus on a single action track, we created dialogues for each of the 5 Action Tracks. The scaled down dialogues allowed for robust conversation amongst the participants. We designed them so that there would be opportunities for different points of view, points of divergence and of course emergence. We, in our way, hopefully created a platform for dialogue where people come from different traditions, religious belongings, countries, industries, and ultimately points of view for how the food system needs to transform. There was no disagreement that things must change but the why and how of that change differed for all of the participants. This we believe to be the most important part - that there is no single solution and that any solutions that are created must be culturally and geographically appropriate, and meet people as people rather than as commodities or numbers on a page. True change happens in a society due to shifts in values and worldview. The world is on a precipice of such a shift as more and more are becoming acutely aware of the climate crisis and the impacts of adding another 3 billion people by 2050. Tensions are rising and violence is happening but so too are efforts for collaboration and peacemaking. Our discussion groups are much smaller but we have created spaces for the grassroots to be in conversation with the grasstops. Change can only happen when we listen and learn from one another in spaces that are egalitarian and democratic so we have tried to create such a space in our dialogues.Stretch beyond typical boundaries to draw together voices that don't typically communicate with one another. This dialogue was particularly interesting because of the multiplicity of perspectives and approaches. While there was a general consensus of what needed to happen the pathways of getting there were quite different.

Yes

234239240242243244247248250251The focus of this dialogue was an exploration of Action Track 3, Regenerating the Earth, focusing on shifting to sustainable consumption patterns. The panelists represented several different perspectives, traditions, and areas of expertise: Lyla June Johnston - Indigenous musician and food systems expert Iyad Abumoghli - Director of the Faith for Earth Initiative at UNEP Felipe Carazo - Tropical Forest Alliance, World Economic Forum Joshua Amponsem - Green Africa Youth Organization Tosi Mpuna-Mpuna - Delegate of the Democratic Republic of Congo to UNFCCC Marcelo Salazar - Health in Harmony Main themes: Nature positivity = human positivity. We are connected to nature. Restoring degraded land and protecting ecosystems while connecting farmers to markets produces better social, economic, and ecological outcomes Alliances between farmers, business, NGOs, governments, indigenous communities, and faith groups are important to prevent deforestation and degradation in a globalized food system235240242243244245246247248249250251The dialogue highlighted an array of negative impacts and externalities in the global food system affecting ecosystems and the communities that rely on them and have sustainably managed them for generations. Panelists also discussed solutions to these challenges. The findings will be discussed based on the main themes of the dialogue: Nature positivity = human positivity. We are connected to nature. Land return to indigenous peoples is important to reinvigorate indigenous food systems and knowledge. The word ‘nature’ splits us from the natural world. Indigenous peoples have been engaged in co-creation of natural systems. For example, the Heiltsuk Nation in British Columbia hand plant kelp forests on the coastline and weight down hemlocks to create spawning areas for herring. This enabled them to harvest roe, but also to bring a caloric injection into the system to feed other animals, including bears, salmon, eagles, wolves, and sea lions Indigenous peoples used seed distribution to cultivate thousands of plant species for food, materials, and medicine. We need to value knowledge from traditional communities, and recognize this knowledge and create instruments to pay for it - ecosystem services as payment, reduced deforestation, payments from carbon tax. This will empower traditional ways of life. There is a diversity of food, culture, and biodiversity in forest communities. When we practice agroforestry and are connected to the landscape, a diversity of species proliferates. There is a gap between the younger generation and the food they eat. Traditional crops are undervalued and processed foods have an outsized role. Lack of access to land and traditional agricultural practices has contributed to this gap. We must be connected to nature and the things we consume. Once we have connected with it, can be connected with the earth and those who produce goods. We lost the system view and need to reconnect. We are at a turning point and must be radical dreamers. Food is very connected to health, so need a systemic view of forest and the healthcare of people and ecosystem as a whole. With forest standing, will have water and less carbon and diversity of food and culture. It’s important to recognize the role of women in connecting us to sustainable food systems. In the Dine community they are matriarchal. Men are in charge of the sky and women are in charge of the Earth. The Lakota were given the sacred pipe from the Buffalo Woman 17 generations ago. They were starving and had no harmony. Everything hinges on equality. Everything else is a symptom. If we support women, we have our hand on the pulse of the next generation. Talk to those in touch on an intuitive spiritual level of what that next generation needs. Restoring degraded land and protecting ecosystems while connecting farmers to markets will produce better social, economic, and ecological outcomes We are no longer talking about unsustainable consequences of ag and fishery, but ecosystems as a whole, and their socioeconomic outcomes. Today our food is called fossil food because production is based on non-renewable resources, leading to soil loss and water resource degradation. We have encouraged excessive and uneconomic use of pesticides and fertilizers, water resources, and mono-cropping In 2050 we will be 10 billion people, cities are exploding, and diets are shifting to unhealthy and unsustainable consumption. And we face an extinction crisis. And we waste 40% of food post harvest. We need a nature positive approach - diversifying agriculture by introducing more resilient crops. We need zero waste. More than 1 Billion are under nourished.We need to use artificial intelligence, especially in areas without proper distribution. With simple applications of technology, farmers can be connected to markets, and harvest at the right time and for the right consumption patterns. Drip irrigation and subsurface agriculture help produce more with less land resources. Alliances between farmers, business, NGOs, governments, indigenous communities, and faith groups are important to prevent deforestation and degradation in a globalized food system We need alliances to protect biodiversity and prevent deforestation. Forest positive means we want to tackle deforestation as part of nature positive solution. One key is radical listening to communities, to create economy of care, learning from thousands of years of managing forests. There are major obstacles, including the complexity of supply chains, market forces, and north/south prejudices. Implementation is critical because you can have unintended consequences. For example, if Europe bans certain forest products, they can end up with deforestation products not coming to Europe, but they still come to developing markets. This cuts off the link with producers. Need to have strategies to make sure there is a level playing field in terms of consumer awareness. Need to close the gap between developed and developing countries. Faith is about believing. Beyond religion. It’s about having faith in each other, and reaching an agreement, trusting each other. Without faith these partnerships can’t happen. We need to understand that faith institutions are also businesses. Faiths are fourth largest economic power and they invest in forestry, mining, industries, etc. If we want to practice what we preach, we must think about our prayers when we do business. Bring values and principles of religions and ethical approaches to investments introduce into bottom line236240242244247Nature positivity = human positivity. We are connected to nature. Honor indigenous food systems and knowledge by returning land to be managed by indigenous communities and fostering an integrated approach to cultivating food that allows biodiversity to flourish. Connect people, particularly the next generation, to land and agriculture to counteract the effects of industrial food systems.236239240244248251Restoring degraded land and protecting ecosystems while connecting farmers to markets produces better social, economic, and ecological outcomes Cultivate a nature positive approach by ensuring zero food waste, reducing pesticides and fertilizers, restoring degraded land for agricultural use, preventing additional conversion, and enabling small scale traditional farmers by implementing technology to help them grow traditional crops and connect them to markets using seasons as a guide.236240243244245246247248249250251Alliances between farmers, business, NGOs, governments, indigenous communities, and faith groups are important to prevent deforestation and degradation in a globalized food system Find ways to overcome barriers to effective alliances. Origin labels - showing where in the forest ingredients come from - are useful. International law and policy must be baselined to encourage the right practices, and sustainable food commodities flowing to markets while preventing or disincentivizing the wrong practices. We must find the faith to trust each other and work together across borders. We must value forest communities and build alliances around protecting them and also compensating them.237240244246247249250Although these panelists are from different countries and backgrounds, there were no major areas of divergence. They referenced a broad range of topics, but the through line is represented by the three major themes. This isn't so much a moment of divergence as much as an epistemological questions about how we relate to and understand our place in nature. There was an important discussion about the commodification of nature and how nature is increasingly only seen as a commodity or a resource or a product, the value of which is determined by how much it can be sold for or what it can be processed into. This value structure removes the implicit value of nature as well as the value an ecosystem or stand of trees or habitat has unto itself as well as the human community. If we continue to only value the natural world in terms of dollars and cents then we won't be able to slow the rate of destruction. There needs to be multiple levels of valuation placed upon nature that take into account its value to the earth, to the more than human inhabitants, to the local population, to the global economy, etc. Without a broader and more representative metric of nature's true value - as well as the costs of ecological destruction - we threaten the human relationship to nature and our ability to adequately sustain the ecosystems that provide life on earth. If we understand ourselves in a symbiotic relationship with the natural world then we have no other option than to reorient how we treat it, what we take from it, how we consume, and how we replenish and restore it. It's an important epistemological shift that if taken seriously will help us make decisions that co-benefit humans and the earth.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/AT3-graphic.jpghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QMlL8P8PeI

2021-06-02 06:58:15204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/11208/203

3605209201516541024121212313311114113210

Participants were invited to register via a survey, capturing the data required by UN FSS. At the end of the survey the Principles of Engagement statement was listed in full. We asked all participants whether they agreed to abide by the PoE, and every participant replied Yes. At the beginning of the dialogue, the curator also reiterated the PoE verbally, as well as with a slide in his presentation. Prior to entering the dialogue, inclusivity, respect, kindness and a celebration of diversity was also reiterated. Our facilitators all completed the UN FSS dialogue facilitating training, and were briefed prior to the dialogue, regarding the PoE.Act with urgency: Prior to the dialogue, a global survey was conducted with participants responding from over 50 countries. The nature of the survey was based on the urgency of need, of food systems transformation. Respondents were asked specifically what are the top practical actions chefs and cooks can take now, to accelerate food systems transformation. The dialogue was a follow-up conversation, to enable survey participants to continue the conversation in-person. Commit to the Summit: The Chefs' Manifesto are fully committed to supporting the UN FSS, as is reflected across the breadth of their advocacy work throughout 2021. Be respectful: Participants from all over the world were invited to attend, with no discrimination occurring. All participants were encouraged to contribute via the facilitated dialogue, given full access to a copy of the chat, slide presentation and follow-up events. Recognise complexity: This was acknowledged by the curator and several of the facilitators. Food systems transformation is complex, yet that is no reason not to act. Participants were encouraged to place in the chat how they could act immediately, with 1 action, starting today. Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity: Participants were invited from right across the food industry sector, from scientists, academics, fine-dining chefs, farmers, and school chefs. No-one who wanted to attend was turned away, as everyone had something to contribute. Complement the work of others: The Chefs' Manifesto believes strongly in working complementarily with the entire sector. We aim to catalyse, convene and curate spaces where partners can come together. Partner networks for this dialogue included: WorldChefs, Le Cordon Bleu London, Chef Ann Foundation, Good Food Fund China, James Beard Foundation, Social Gastronomy and Chefs 4 the Planet. Build trust: The Chefs' Manifesto were completely transparent on the dialogue rules, processes and practices.Ensure you invite a broad range on perhaps considered 'unusual actors', as their contributions are invaluable.

Yes

234238239240241242243244247248249251As agents of change, and to drive action, chefs need to come together in one collective, connected voice. The Chefs’ Manifesto network has taken a leading role to further focus and narrow the SDG roadmap for chefs, as well as bridging and connecting across chef networks. This has been motivated by the UN Food Systems Summit, and the urgent need to generate actions to be able to achieve the SDGs by 2030. Through conducting a survey prior to the dialogues, the aim was to learn from participants, what the top priorities are for 2021 and the Decade of Action, the results of which will inform the creation of a ‘Chefs’ Pledge’. This Pledge will be a commitment to key practical priorities that can have the greatest impact to enact change. It will aim to create collective momentum to rally greater attention and engagement of chef food systems champions, mobilising them even further as agents of change, at key global events, and especially at the upcoming UN Food Systems Summit. The survey was built from the 8 Thematic Areas in the Chefs' Manifesto, asking participants to rank what they believe will enact the greatest change to food systems transformation. Participants from over 50 countries contributed responses, the results of which can be found here: https://sdg2advocacyhub.org/chefs-manifesto/actions/chefs-pledge-results-are The 8 top actions voted were: 1. Get to know your ingredients: How are they grown, reared or sourced? Choose ingredients with the lowest impact on the environment. 2. Lead by example: Maintain the rich diversity of the world’s natural larder by using different varieties of plants, grains and proteins. Champion ‘wild’ variants and avoid monoculture. 3. Get to know your ingredients: Who grows, harvests, sources and packages them? How do they get to you? Investigate the journey from farm to fork. Choose ingredients with as few intermediaries as possible between you and the farmer. 4. Lead by example: through separating, monitoring and setting targets to reduce food waste. 5. Use your purchasing power: Buy locally produced foods in season. Avoid air-freighted foods. 6. Lead by example: Make vegetables, beans and pulses the centre of your dishes. 7. Be a community food champion: Showcase best practise on food safety, allergens and nutrition in your kitchens and through your menus 8. Be a community food champion: Support initiatives that provide access to nutritious meals in your communities - whether that be a soup kitchen, food bank or community garden project. From this survey, participants were invited to attend independent dialogues. The key topic was 'The top practical actions chef can take to accelerate food systems transformation', guided by the 8 top actions voted by survey participants. These 8 practical actions connect across all 5 of the Action Tracks, whilst ultimately coming back to a desire to ensure there is Good Food for All.235238239240241242244246247248249251Core findings to emerge from this dialogue: 1) There needs to be an alliance between everyone right across food systems, to enact holistic change. 2) Advocacy and Education are essential. 3) Any progress will only come from action-centred approaches. 4) It is critical to empower voices of leadership in the food system that have been at the head of the movements for generations (indigenous, minorities); 5) Plant-based diets or a major reduction in meat protein, is a critical focus for planetary health and people health 6) We can all be community food champions - demanding and lobbying for access to healthy food, education on cooking and diets; 7) Chefs can be INDUSTRY food champions - blaze new paths for future chefs, target broad audiences 8) Utilise renewable energy sources such as solar power 9) Eliminate use of plastic 10) Work more with schools and 11) Advocate for local sourcing 12) Create indoor growing of produce such as vegetables, legumes, herbs, etc.(Urban gardening) Society dictates the rules and norms of our everyday lives. If we can change society’s perspective on food the government is sure to follow by implementing guidelines that range from regulating the age of compost to how to reach local and regional producers to reduce our carbon footprint. The need for food systems advocate aware chefs, to incorporate into their work and time the role of an EDUCATOR. Chefs must focus on creating strategies to deliver key information to their clients/customers in a way that suits their local reality, as this may vary from a small village in Kazakhstan to a huge hotel chain in the UK. No matter what a chefs circumstance, it was agreed that they all have a role to play to contextual the urgent message of fixing failed food systems, by striving to change: how consumers make choices about food (from sourcing, buying and variety); knowing where our food comes from (protecting livelihoods); how it impacts both people and planet; to advocating for all people to have access to affordable, good food. The other main finding coming from all of the break-out rooms, was that we must act now. Time is critical and a cohesive, collective effort is needed to ensure food systems transformation is accelerated.236238239240241242244245246247248249Question 1: What actions (by chefs) in the next 3 years do you believe will have the greatest impact at a macro (global) level? A) Livelihoods: There must be equity within payroll and living wage that is adhered to by all countries to ensure accessibility and affordability Ways action could be assessed by: 1. Only sourcing from producers that can prove they pay a fair wage 2. Have a sourcing list that suppliers/industry leaders can only be a part of if they pay a living wage 3. Decrease in the number of people living in poverty B) Action urgently needed involving education on multiple levels: 1. Chefs - training the next generation of chefs that not only includes cooking but also regarding the impact on the environment and carbon footprint. The effects of our food choices on the planet. 2. Chefs engaging and learning from farmers, across the globe farmers work with different crops in different climates. Chefs need to understand how sustainability and farming can work together 3. Chefs un-learning – rethinking what they have done in the past and how to make it better. It was discussed how generations before us had more of a connection to food, how we have forgotten this and in fact need to also look back in history to find better ways for the future 4. Chefs changing their menus – making plants the star of the show and being creative in how we showcase a better diet to our customers. Ways actions could be assessed by: 1. Positive changes in consumer behaviour. 2. Seeing global poverty numbers falling 3. Corporations – success can be measured by seeing a change in food trends within supermarkets etc to more sustainable, better ingredients 4. Evidenced also through a marked, global shift in the way chefs approach cooking in their restaurants and cooking: from using their purchasing power right through to menu curation and consumer education. C) Chefs can contribute by being advocates. The best way chefs can contribute is by using their platforms as trendsetters to advocate for good food and clean eating, to educate the people and most importantly to promote buying local and seasonal products. By doing this they can help us achieve the SDG’s goals. Education starts from home but is up to us to continue the work and really emphasise that small changes can have a big impact. The change can be as small as reimagining vegetables not as a side dish but as the star of the main meal, and highlighting lesser-known crops; or be as big as pushing plant-based meals front and centre on restaurant menus. Advocating for good food and clean eating should be our priority for the next 3 years. D) Urgent action required to reduce food-waste and value natural resources Educating home cooks and other chefs about food processing as a way to preserve and keep the nutrition of ingredients, and also to tackle food waste. Ways progress could be assessed: - Legislation on food waste, recycling and sustainable living - Sustainable living standard policies237238239240241242244245246247248249251Divergences Points Participants held varied yet largely cohesive ideas throughout this dialogue. However, the main areas of divergence occurred when discussing the challenges to achieving good food for all: a) Financial interests vs sustainability - sustainability but at what cost? 'If I can't make payroll I need to cut corners somewhere'; b) Budgets/financial constraints, from restaurants to school/institutional food to the home c) In chain restaurants especially, tech adoption as threat to livelihood; d) Another challenge to fair wages which allow greater access to good food e) Lure of ‘fine dining’ instead of ‘good food for all’ f) Conflict between “true price of food” and “accessibility” g) Old habits vs new ideas and philosophies h) Lack of vision and flexibility within traditional culinary institutions who haven't introduced sustainability best practice education; contextual barriers; and lack of education i) Time for training in leadership roles o j) Sugar addictions k) The lure of packaged/convenience food l) Mono-crops m) People not knowing how to cook and source responsibly n) We have to work LOCALLY to influence people we have influence with, together. o) Working state by state will be impossible in the USA. Many of the issues could be solved by government agencies, we need to continue to advocate to the FDA. p) We keep waiting for the government to to do the work, we need to do it ourselves and the government will follow. q) Food democracy / food inequality

2021-06-02 07:19:02204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/11594/202

45526142124312372513121021813

The dialogue was split in a local and regional consultations. This report describes the consolidation of the local insights and recommendations and regional level (en therefore the regional dialogue. However, to describe the organization, this paragraph includes the local dialogue as well: The local and face-to-face dialogues took place amongst farmers (totaling 400) in Mudzi and Uzumba Maramba Pfungwe (UMP) districts of Zimbabwe and through social media discussion groups. For over ten years, these farmers have been members of Farmer Field Schools. Through a facilitated focus group discussion and a brainstorm session, the main objective of the local dialogues was for farmers and local leaders in Zimbabwe to reflect on their experiences and provide recommendations towards achieving seed security for resilient food systems in the next ten years. The dialogue started with a discussion on the objectives of the UNFSS. The regional dialogue series started on 29 April. Farmer representatives from the local dialogues shared their views and recommendations with the regional dialogue participants. This was conducted in a fire-side interview format. The regional dialogues were a combination of face-to-face and virtual meetings and the participants included farmers, government representatives, officials, researchers, extension agents, civil society actors, and policy makers. The multi-stakeholder participants from the regional dialogue shared their valuable perspectives on: (i) the links between seeds and resilient foods systems; (ii) the links between conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity with food and nutrition security for climate change adaptation; and (iii) recommendations to the UN Food Systems Summit in support of smallholder farmers and resilient food systems. A second regional dialogue was conducted on 12 May to further articulate the recommendations from the first dialogue.'Act with urgency & Commit to the Summit': The dialogues started with a 'setting of the stage' that included brief key note speeches on the urgency of the topics under discussion and road towards the UNFSS and beyond. 'Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity': The list of participants was multi-stakeholder and the conveners invited underrepresented stakeholder groups to invite peers. Furthermore, this dialogue series builds on the inclusion of a broad group of smallholder farmers, with a special focus on women inclusion in both the local dialogues and as representatives at regional level. 'Complement the work of others': This dialogue series is meant to bring in the seed perspective into the Food Systems paradigm, from a smallholder farmer perspective. In the dialogue, both conveners and participants stressed that this perspective is and should be closely linked to both the formal seed sector and to food systems. Making these links explicit and include these in recommendations was one of the key objectives.- Include everyone that you aim to dialogue about. - Set a purpose beyond the Summit, your dialogues, efforts and actions should not end there. - In case of a series of dialogues: Make sure you share reports and new insights with earlier participants.

Yes

234238241242244249The major focus is the intrinsic link between seeds and food and how to support local farmers in their access and sustainable use of seeds. A transformative agenda for sustainable and equitable food systems needs to go hand in hand with equitable and sustainable seed systems, because “no seeds means no food”. In a continuous cycle, farmers grow food from seeds and farmers get their seeds from their food. Farmers’ innovation has domesticated and continues to enhance and develop plants that form the basis of local to global food systems. Plant genetic resources are the basis for resilience and sustainability of our seed systems. Even prior to the Covid 19 pandemic, Zimbabwe has been facing the highest levels of acute food insecurity in a decade due to hyperinflation and reduced harvest aggravated by extreme weather events such as drought and excessive rainfall and agricultural pest and diseases. Zimbabwe has also been facing poor health care and nutrition. A large proportion of the population relies on humanitarian assistance to survive. The food crisis is gravely felt at local levels; at the same time remarkable resilience and solutions are also found at the local food systems level. Locally produced food plays an important role in meeting local people’s food and nutrition security, especially in ensuring dietary diversity. In much of Sub-Saharan Africa, small holder farmers provide up to 80% of the domestic food supply. At least half of these farmers are women. Local food systems are largely dependent on Farmer Managed Seeds Systems (FMSS). A seed system is the constellation of people and networks who utilize plant genetic resources in a chain of activities, which may include the identification, conservation, improvement, development, production, regulation, distribution and marketing of plant materials. Seed systems operate within evolving environments, markets, and cultures. Formal seed systems typically involve public and private institutions. More informally, farmers’ seed systems operate locally and are based on farm-saved seeds. Farmer seed systems are significant for food production: 80% of farmers in Africa rely on farm-saved seeds and the local informal markets.235238241242244249251A. Locally produced food plays an important role in meeting local people’s food security and in ensuring dietary diversity. In much of Sub-Saharan Africa, small holder farmers provide up to 80% of the domestic food supply . At least half of these farmers are women. Local food systems refer to specific geographic and social networks of short value chain of food production, processing, marketing, distribution, consumption and waste management. In Zimbabwe, for example, farmers grow and gather a diversity of crops that are locally adapted to their agro-ecologies, socio-economies and cultural preferences. Local food is grown on farm and in home gardens. Local edible plants are gathered in the wild. Local food systems are often linked to domestic markets where farmers sell and buy food in addition to what they produce locally. Diversity is important for the farmers for diets and resilience. Through a diversity of seeds, farmers get secured access to a diversity of nutritious food. Resilient seeds, or seeds that tolerate e.g., floods, drought and pest and diseases help ensure the availability and access to diverse and nutritious food such as small grains, legumes and vegetables. B. Local food systems are largely dependent on Farmer Managed Seeds Systems (FMSS). A seed system is the constellation of people and networks who utilize plant genetic resources in a chain of activities, which may include the identification, conservation, improvement, development, production, regulation, distribution and marketing of plant materials. Seed systems operate within evolving environments, markets and cultures. Formal seed systems typically involve public and private institutions. More informally, farmers’ seed systems operate locally and are based on farm-saved seeds. Farmer seed systems are significant for food production: 80% of farmers in Africa rely on farm-saved seeds and the local informal markets. Individually and collectively through e.g., Community Seed Banks, farmers manage a diversity of seeds of crops and crop varieties. Farmers manage their seeds through seed management practices such as seed selection, storage, keeping track of seed health and germination, and through multiplication, exchange and local sales. Farmers also conserve and adapt crops through varietal selection, varietal enhancement, and breeding. These activities are done individually and in Farmer Field Schools; and are supported by CSOs, researchers, and extension agents. C. Seed security is crucial to food security and livelihoods and is part of a community’s disaster risk management, especially in the context of climate change. Together with agro-ecological practices, and farmers accessing weather information and collecting weather data themselves, farmers use plant genetic resources as part of their climate adaptation strategies. In Zimbabwe, the farmers are experiencing recurrent droughts and unpredictable rainfall. In response, farmers used drought resistant crops and varieties such as millet, sorghum, and ground nut. Farmers also used crops that mature quicker and at different times so that they can adjust to erratic rainfall. A well-functioning and sustainably managed Community Seed Bank can provide farmers with quality seeds when they need to re-sow, when rainfall is too erratic, or when they lose their seeds from a failed harvest. D. Farmer Managed Seed Systems are resilient but are also under severe and multiple stresses. In this regard, farmers need continuous access to plant genetic resources. Farmers need policy, legislative, technical and market support from multiple stakeholders. It is important that networks of community seed banks are linked with national and international gene-banks. A network of community seed banks and/or Farmer Field Schools performs more effectively when linked and supported by other farmers, genebanks, plant breeders, and markets. Through the collaboration between farmers, breeders, and policy makers, breeders will gain a better understanding of farmers’ needs in crop varieties, while farmers can further adapt to local climatic conditions and markets. E. A vibrant seed sector is an inclusive sector. Smallholder farmers are critical to food and nutrition security and they play a key role in the farmer managed seeds system. In this regard, the participation and leadership of women needs to be ensured along with men and the youth.236238241242244249251Recommendation 1: World leaders should recognize farmers’ roles and their contribution to local seeds and food systems; and institutionalize their active participation and engagement correspondingly. ● The importance of seeds to food systems needs to be recognised and approached in an integrated manner. Farmers need regular access to a diversity of good quality seeds that are suitable for their local agro-climatic conditions. Seeds are fundamental to the livelihoods of small holder farmers; as crop production starts with seed. “No seeds mean no food”. Therefore, seeds are vital for the sustainable and equitable production and consumption of food. ● The challenges faced in local seed systems need to be understood. Farmers appealed for recognition of their views and work through creation of collaborative linkages between farmers, researchers, policy makers, and the seed industry. Farmers highlighted that they need to actively participate in decision making processes which affect their seeds and livelihoods. ● Farmer Managed Seed Systems (FMSS) need to be recognised and supported at the technical, policy and legislative, and at the socio-economic levels. In particular, women have roles as custodians of seeds; and they should be part of the leading role in FMSS. ● Young farmers should be engaged and their interests and roles should be enhanced. At the technical level: ● Plant genetic resources are important for food security. FMSS are continually under stress due to the changing climate. Agro-biodiversity is important in mitigating the adverse effects of, and adapting to climate change. The continued availability and accessibility of both traditional and improved crop varieties is key to present and future improvements in crop productivity. ● Smallholder farmers have a role in conserving and improving seeds through engaging in Participatory Varietal Selection (PVS), Enhancement (PVE) and Breeding (PPB). These are best conducted in Farmer Field Schools with the support of national and internal research and extension services. ● The farmers also stressed the important functions of Community Seed Banks (CSBs), which are a repository of a diversity of good quality seeds that are evaluated and selected by the farmers. In poor production seasons, the seedbank is a fallback strategy for farmers as they can withdraw or borrow seeds for (re)sowing. The community seed bank also needs strong linkages with the national gene bank for mutual support for seeds conservation and use. At the policy and legislative level: ● The farmers expressed their knowledge of the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA) and the need for national governments to implement Farmers’ Rights for the advancement of FMSS and complementarities in the seed sector. ● As the African region seeks to harmonise seed systems, there should be a clear standpoint for recognizing and supporting FMSS. The policy and legislative environment should enable farmers to produce and sell their own seeds and to broaden the genetic base of landraces and improved varieties for resilient food systems. ● The farmers articulated the challenges related to the registration of farmer varieties. The seed registration Distinctiveness, Uniformity and Stability (DUS) requirements are too complex, strict, and unrealistic for farmers to meet. There is a need for separate requirements for the registration of farmer varieties. At the socio-economic level: ● The complementarities between the FMSS, public, and commercial seed sectors need to be enhanced. ● Farmers need access to the seeds markets for buying and selling farmer varieties.236238241242244249251Recommendation 2: At the policy and legislative levels, farmers and dialogue stakeholders recommend engagement with multiple stakeholders to define the complementarities between the commercial seed systems and farmer managed seed systems (FMSS). The harmonisation of seed policies and laws should recognize and support FMSS as crucial to food and nutrition security in the context of climate change adaptation. ● Broadly define FMSS for the formulation of a policy and legislative framework which recognises farmer seed systems in terms of production, marketing, and distribution under ecologically adaptive conditions; Formulate policy support to enhance FMSS’ value chains from access of materials, seeds development and production, farmer friendly registration and quality certification to local marketing; Explore the use of FAO’s quality declared seed framework (QDS); Develop guidelines for registration of farmer varieties. ● Legislate and operationalize Farmers’ Rights in the context of a rights-based approach; Formulate a stand-alone farmers rights policy and legislation, which incorporates a functional benefit sharing mechanism that includes women as custodians of agricultural biodiversity; Engage the youths in agriculture. ● Apply sui-generis system for recognizing farmer varieties, including uncomplicated and appropriate varietal testing systems for farmers’ varieties. ● Create favourable policies for investments in developing local and domestic markets for farmer varieties; Create farmer centric local markets through the value chain; Create farmer centric business models and favourable marketing strategies for small holder farmers, which lead to a policy framework for agriculture inclusive of marketing and trade policy. ● At the policy, legislative and technical levels, institutionalise farmers’ active participation and capacity building in decision making and implementation of Farmer Seed Systems, taking into account the diversity of farmers seed perspectives, cultures, gender, economic and social inclusion and knowledge management systems. ● Create more seed networks so that farmers can participate at all levels of engagement on seed issues (national, regional or global). ● Promote Farmer Field Schools (FFS) as a strategy to build and empower communities for experimental learning, agriculture research agenda setting, data collection and analysis by farmers, decision-making and participation related to crop growing conditions in local communities.236238241242244249251Recommendation 3: At the technical level, farmers and dialogue stakeholders recommend ensuring farmers’ seed security, including use of biodiversity as part of anticipatory actions for disaster risk management in the context of climate change. ● Ensure farmers have continuous access to crop diversity through institutionalised linkages with private and public stakeholders. ● Support and invest in the sustainable use of Neglected and Underutilised Species. ● Support the establishment of farmer seed enterprises as a strategy for seed sector development. Identify local seed companies and start building on them to promote and enhance NUS. ● Increase research and investment on small grain processing equipment for smallholder farmers to ease the drudgery involved in processing small grains. ● Consider Community Seed Banks as seed hubs and sources of quality seed. They should also be recognised as centres of knowledge and information management. The Community Seed Banks should be linked with Universities, National Gene Banks and interface with policy makers. ● Promote Farmer Field Schools (FFS) as a strategy to build and empower communities for experimental learning, agriculture research agenda setting, data collection and analysis by farmers, decision-making and participation related to crop growing conditions in local communities. ● Promote agro-ecological approaches that complement the conservation and use of plant genetic resources for sustainable food production, and for the restoration of lost biodiversity, degraded soils, and water management. It should be the economic driver of food and nutrition security based on sustainability, resilience, and increased food production ● Institutionalise farmers’ active participation and capacity building in decision making and implementation, taking into account the diversity of farmers seed perspectives, cultures, gender and social inclusion, and knowledge management systems.237238241242244246249251There was little divergence in the discussions. Instead, the participants identified possible constraints to their proposed recommendations: a) Lack of political will among policy makers to expedite the process of the policies that support, recognize and promote the FMSS b) Lack of resources to a) undertake consultative meetings with stakeholders in the policy development process, b) raise awareness on the importance of policies that recognise and support FMSS, c) provide incentives for creating a favourable environment and d) conduct trainings for farmers on quality seed production. c) Existing seed laws which do not support the FMSS constrain operationalizing the proposed actions. The time taken for policy change is often very long and this has a potential to slow down the implementation of the recommendations d) Seed Companies may oppose the development of policies that foster a conducive environment for the FMSS as they may perceive this as a threat to their seed business. e) Low yields of local farmer seeds. Efforts should be developed at the technical level to improve these using simple methods such as Participatory Variety Enhancement (PVE) and Participatory Variety Development (PVD) f) Lack of legislative and policy frameworks to promote farmer seed systems. The private sector is closer to the centres of power than those of the proponents of farmer seed systems. Proponents of farmer systems should develop capacities to engage those responsible for policy-making. g) Advocacy and lobby champions for farmer seed systems are still too few. There is a need to build a critical mass of champions at all levels (field, technical, policy and legislative levels).

2021-06-02 08:08:23204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/11649/203

38013149201226023303513202234200321021236213012002325

ProVeg International and the Buddhist Tzu-Chi Foundation had a clear ambition: bringing together different stakeholders from all sectors to make sure everyone is represented at the table, thus acknowledging that shifting food systems is not an easy task and needs discussion and consensus-building. We hand-selected the participants in order to ensure inclusivity of as many different sectors, regions, and cultures as possible and a civil discussion. Though we had specialists participate, the dialogue was primarily geared towards non-specialists and focused on personal experiences. In the several breakout sessions, we also ensured that every stakeholder group is represented to avoid repetitive talks on similar areas of expertise and foster more creative and ambitious exchanges.Among all the principles, our dialogue reflected most specific aspects of the following ones: - Act with Urgency: In every breakout session, we acknowledged the fact that we are in the middle of a climate-emergency and that we need to find concrete and practical solutions to tackle this crisis as well as environmental degradation and food-security. - Recognize complexity: Food includes many components. Food is not only what we eat; it involves a whole system from production to consumption. In our talks, we recognized the need for transformation at all stages, from the systems that produce, to the individual behaviors that inform our consumption patterns. As these stages varied depending on the stakeholders, solutions must be adapted to those. - Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity: By inviting stakeholders from all sectors and mixing them into different breakout sessions, we ensured both diversity and inclusion of our stakeholders groups. It was important to recognize the voice of everyone for each topic. - Complement the work of others: Organizing the dialogue into various breakout groups, focused on different dimensions of what informs behavior change, we were able to explore various perspectives that were able to complement our discussions.The Principles of Engagement are very important to create a safe space where each individual feels empowered to express themselves and engage in a direct, yet respectful exchange with stakeholders that might not agree. If you want every invitee to be able to participate in an inclusive dialogue, showing them you are respecting these principles is the first step you need to take. Make sure each participant understands he/she/they will be contributing to the breakout group discussion and not only be a passive listener. Additionally, by upholding Chatham House Rules, we could ensure that honest conversation about our challenges could be present.

Yes

234239243244246249In this dialogue, our approach was to explore the reasons behind food choices, digging into resources from behavioral science to market analysis and the impact of faith and culture. Recognizing that the Food Systems of today are unsustainable, leading to deforestation, climate change, destruction of ecosystems, food insecurity, and malnutrition, a transformation is urgently needed in order to ensure the survival of mankind and all living beings on Earth. Global leaders must strongly comply with the 2030 Agenda and the Paris Agreement on Climate Change to meet its ambitious climate targets. However, in order to make these changes, the public must first be able to accept a fundamental shift in dietary choices. According to the IPCC, industrial agriculture is responsible for one third of global greenhouse gas emissions. Agriculture uses about 70% of global freshwater and occupies very large parts of land: It is estimated that around 40 % of the terrestrial surface is used as croplands and grazing lands. In some parts of the world, this represents a significant cause for deforestation. Drivers linked to food production cause 70% of terrestrial biodiversity loss as a result of the growing demand for resources. In addition, as the loss of habitats forces wildlife to move closer and closer to civilization, zoonoses become an increasing concern. Food insecurity has resulted in an epidemic of hunger (especially in the Global South): Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, almost 690 million people worldwide were undernourished. Meanwhile, in the Global North, more than 70% of the US adult population suffers from obesity or being overweight as a result of poor dietary choices and overconsumption, they are therefore more likely to deal with diabetes, heart disease and other health issues. It is clear that our current food systems are detrimental to our health and wellbeing, destructive of the environment, unsustainable, and inequitable. From the mountains of evidence and research on the inevitable collapse of our food systems, a rapid and abrupt shift in food production and consumption is necessary in order to ensure the survival of life on Earth, if not to mitigate the environmental impacts of food production then to adapt to an environment which has already been drastically altered. This implies a shift in dietary choices--a global shift towards plant-centric diets may be key to sustainability in the near future. Our dietary choices are deeply ingrained in personal identity. Despite the overwhelming evidence that a shift in food systems is not only necessary but inevitable, without public acceptance and consent to this shift, governments will be reluctant to make the necessary policies for change.235238239244245246247249251Culture and Religion: - We have grown increasingly disconnected from the natural world, and by extension, our food. The critical role of religion and culture is to help renew our relationship to the environment we live in and produce our food from. - There is an emergent culture war between those who eat meat and those who don’t, which has been co-opted into an issue of political identity as well. In order to address this divide, we must utilize both culture and religion to identify those who feel disenfranchised by emergent cultural messaging on climate friendly diets, and work with policymakers to address their gaps and needs. - More work has to be done in investigating the linkages between the narrative of “wealth” and “progress” with the overconsumption of meat. Additionally, cultural narratives around masculinity and meat must be reshaped to ensure as we transition towards more sustainable diets, that men do not feel marginalized. - Much of the cultural and religious messaging will not succeed unless subsidies for CAFOs and animal products are shifted towards plant based foods. So long as subsidies for animal products continue in their current shape, climate friendly diets are not an economical option for many families around the world. - Recognizing how precious food is to our identities, as we continue to work towards a just transition of our food systems, we must not only address the systems at play, but also speak to the heart of those we are trying to change, to which, culture and religion are key levers to utilize. Health: - People are on a different spectrum in relation to how easy diet change is for them. Those that perceive it to be the most difficult may find it the hardest to change - We need to have fresh foods more present in our life – build a system of choice architecture system to make healthier foods more available to us. - Need to change legislation – e.g. France and Spain have legislation pushing for meat and dairy to be included in every school meal - People may be limited in their options due to health conditions (diabetes require low-carb/keto diets, those with celiac disease require gluten-free, etc) and we need to be mindful of this - Food has a large influence on how we think. There is research on how certain gut bacteria can influence our thought processes ('psychobiome'). Sugar/glucose is also important for brain function. There have been recent studies that point out vegetarianism has some correlation with higher levels of depression and anxiety. - Morality and food are strongly linked; moral disgust and physical disgust are both associated with the insular cortex Politics: - Citizens are shifting, but not policymakers → lack of channels to give input and possibility for citizens to organize. - We need a stronger citizens movement - Intersectionality of the issues (connection between food practices and history, oppression, marginalization of some populations etc.) Economics: - We need to change taxation of food: there is a disconnection of Food production and consumption, strengthening local supply chain, strengthening local supply chain and connecting consumer with farmer - Consumers need to be better connected with producers, they need to pay a price which includes the hidden cost of food (True cost accounting) - Food systems economic model: well-being for humans. How to measure growth (GBD) does not reflect reality. Environment: - We need education to make behavior in the food systems more resilient and connected with nature. - We must promote education materials for each age group and this must take into consideration intergenerational actions.236238239241246249CULTURE AND RELIGION We acknowledge that: - Religion has failed to scale to the potential of food systems transformation. - We are disconnected from our plates. - We need to reinstate the connection with traditional food practices: Since morality and reaction to food are both associated with the insular cortex, there is a strong relationship between religion (morality) and food. Thus, religion has a bigger influence on people's food choices than you may think (hence the many different food traditions and STRICT adherence to those traditions from followers). In developed countries, there is an awareness that our current food systems are not sustainable, but there is no way to transform. In developing countries, purchasing powers are increasing and we can observe a transition towards unsustainable practices, adopting the culture of the global North. The narrative that animal products are strong in proteins and a rich food is still very present. On the faith level, we see that the case for food theology isn’t well spread and known. The relationship between faith and ecology isn’t really defined. Is religion a resource or a barrier? What we need is: - To change societal traps on what is valuable because how culture and religion views food is the key to behavioral change. - A policy and regulation shift with regulatory commissions and subsidies. Those have a cultural impact because they change the price of food and how we see this food. - A cultural shift in what foods connotate wealth and progress, from the “meat for every meal” as the rich man’s diet, to “healthy foods” as the baseline of wealth. - To empower faith and culture communities so they know how to advocate to local governments for policies that incentivize sustainable food systems for their communities, whether those be subsidies for plants or zoning land for community gardens. - A coherent and unified culture that promotes environmentalism as a moral virtue. There are some religions (or faith leaders that propagate this) that emphasize that the Earth is made by God for human beings to exploit (Anthropocentrism). They've successfully created an Us vs Them narrative that environmentalism is for those who do not have faith. However, plant-based diets are seen as a privilege coming from the “influencer culture”. They’re viewed as for coastal elites and that is problematic. This creates a further polarization within the population. Eating meat vs. eating plants is a culture war. How do we give access to the plant-based culture to those who aren’t not part of the influencer community? We need cultures and religions that promote sustainable diets encouraging transition by patterned actions taken by culture and faith leaders.236238239243244245249251HEALTH What we acknowledge: - People are on a different spectrum in relation to how easy diet change is for them. Those that perceive it to be the most difficult may find it the hardest to change. - There are different barriers: - Health barriers and social influences can stop people to switch to a plant-based diet - Other barriers that prevent people from shifting towards a plant-based diet could be the lack of basic cooking skills - Food plays a major role in the way humans think and behave through physiological and neurological processes. What our solutions are: - Information is important: Using evidence to demonstrate to populations the impact their diet can have on their health is an important motivating factor. This evidence should be used with health care providers. - Healthy yet sustainable food choices need to be encouraged – but this will ultimately lead to higher prices. Whatever the food we choose we need to look at the environmental prize as well. - People don’t follow suggestions, we need to give the voice to the citizens to share the challenges of making a diet change. - We need to have fresh foods more present in our life – build a system of choice architecture system to make healthier foods more available to us. - We need food solutions that not only fulfill the health needs of everyone, but are also sustainable and carbon neutral. So, could evidence be used to change our health system, for example, with health insurance costs linked to their health choices? - Using economic incentives as a way of directing individuals to the best diet, using ways of encouraging default steps to direct people to the best way can work. - We need ways to elevate plant-based diet, and make it the easy choice: That can happen through better legislation. We need to change legislation – e.g. France and Spain have legislation which means meat and dairy has to be included in every school meal which is not the most sustainable and healthiest choice.236238239242243244246249251POLITICS What we acknowledge: - Some countries are still vehemently opposed to a radical transformation of our food systems. - Policymakers are not listening to citizens: There is a lack of channels at the international and European level. - We cannot expect a transition without offering a concrete alternative for those losing out. - Politics is not about ethics or the right thing to do, but rather about power dynamics and wealth. - There are highly influential policymakers that are driven by greed, propaganda, and corporate donations. - Propaganda plays a large role in public opinion; even bad policies have a strong chance of actualization if a significant portion of the population is convinced to support it. - Public opinion, rather than being driven by data, science, and reason, is significantly more influenced by tribalism, emotional appeal, and appeal to authority. What our solutions are: - We need possibilities for citizens to organise, they should be given more freedom to do that: It might be easier at the national level to organize a stronger citizens movement. We need to make citizens feel empowered. - We need to think about these issues in a more intersectional way to include everyone (Women, Youth, Minorities). There is a need for solutions for everyone. - Education is necessary to create awareness. We could create an informed universal picture of what needs to be done: There is no platform like that yet. - Policymakers need to be following the science and the consensus needs to be inclusive.236239240242244245246249ECONOMICS What we acknowledge: - There is a disconnection between food production and consumption. - There are always hidden costs of food. - How we measure growth (GBD) does not reflect reality. What we need to do: - We need to change the taxation of food by strengthening local supply chain, strengthening local supply chain and connecting consumer with farmer, - Farmers need to get a financial benefit when doing a better a more sustainable production - The quality of the communication with the consumers also needs to be improved → the consumers need to pay a price which includes the hidden cost of food (true cost accounting). - We need better tax regulation e.g. higher tax for meat, new tax models - We need to repurpose subsidies to nature-positive production - We need better labelling and classification to give information about the environmental impact of food (e.g. Nutriscore in many European countries for the health impact, but we could do that on the environment as well).236238239244249251ENVIRONMENT We acknowledge that: - Education is a key element from a very young age. - Raising awareness about the impact of the traditional agricultural practices is important What we need: - In order to change the behavior in the food system to be more resilient and to connect with nature, we need education. - We need to promote the education materials for each age group and this must take in consideration intergenerational actions - We need actions to raise awareness about the Impact of the traditional agriculture practices that are not sustainable and animal industry in the food system: A shift toward plant-rich diets is important because those are healthy, they protect nature and animals. - We highlighted the need of having a role model that can help to advocate for change at a political level.237238245246249The main area of divergence that emerged during our Dialogue was the opposition Producers/Consumers → While producers’ interests should be more taken into account with fair prices, we cannot forget that some consumers’ categories are not able to make sustainable and healthy food choices. We need as well a better taxation of food products as subsidies enabling both producers and consumers to be treated fairly.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/FSD_TC_PV_Concept_Note_21052021.pdfhttps://drive.google.com/file/d/1LackxkPCGxhxh0iT2lhldWKZuZrmuzIM/view?usp=sharing

2021-06-02 09:44:01205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/8496/153

120

All principles of engagement for UN Food Systems summit were respected and we mostly focused on the principle of diversity and inclusivityComplementarity

Yes

234238243248249Exploration of Action track number 1. Major topics were: • Availability of nutritious foods: • Accessibility & Affordability of nutritious food • Food Safety Discussions were around what game changing actions that should be implemented for increased availability and accessibility of nutritious foods and rising the challenges faced by Rwanda to increase food safety and concluded on actions to be taken. The dialogue aimed at identifying challenges and potential game changing actions that will increase the production and availability of nutritious food, reduce inequalities, increase incomes and purchasing power of food system actors, increase accessibility, food utilization and minimize food loss and waste in a sustainable manner and proposing ideas to minimize food borne diseases due to unsafe food. Game changing solutions to increase production and availability of nutritious food to achieve Zero Hunger and to increase the accessibility and affordability of nutritious food for all people identified will be tackled while highlighting the potential solutions to increase food safety. Discussion Topic Outcomes • Increase production: Land use consolidation and the introduction of commercial farming, increasing output of small-holder farmers via better input (irrigation, fertilizer, seeds), extension services, soil-erosion prevention measures and increase production of animal source foods through focus on small livestock (poultry and pigs), making feed more affordable, improving breeds and trigger the private sector investment; • Improve infrastructure: distributions chains (incl. cold-chains), post-harvest handling and processing, reduce food loss by investing in infrastructure and technology and capacity building • Affordability and consumption of nutritious food: Make nutritious/health foods more affordable (especially for vulnerable groups) by increasing production, invest in innovation, reduce food loss and increase consumption of nutritious foods: increase awareness on the nutritional foods, improve safety standards and knowledge thereof, realise social behaviour change, increase decision-making power of women in household. • Food safety: Increase consumer awareness on food safety, implement/update regulatory framework on food safety and increase laboratory capacity and number of certified products on the market • Cross-cutting themes: Increase innovation and research (bio-fortified seeds, animal breeds/genetics, production technologies etc.), empower women and youth to participate in food production (e.g., through extension services, access to financing) increase access to finance and insurance, private sector investments (incl. public-private partnerships) make climate change resilient agriculture the norm (promote climate friendly farming practices, research into climate resilient varieties) and increase regional trade (improve common standards and easy certification, reduce tariff and non-tariff barriers).235238Availability of nutritious foods: Existing Challenge within Food System :Low yield of major crops compared to the potential yield, Limited uptake of modern technologies, Poor access to financing: 5.2% of credit went to agriculture in 2020; Poor access to financing: 5.2% of credit went to agriculture in 2020; Inadequate knowledge, skills and capacity of farmers (21% of farmer reached by extension services; Low production of Animal Sources Foods, driven by high cost and unavailability of quality animal feed/fodder, genetics/breed, vaccines, etc.; Game changing solutions • Land use consolidation and the introduction of commercial farming (Implementation of Land use and Development master plan 2050) • Modernization of agriculture (erosion control, mechanization and irrigation), • Increasing output of small-holder farmers via better input supply and capacity building • Increase production of animal source foods through focus on small livestock (poultry and pigs), making feed more affordable, improving breeds • Research on high-yield varieties (seeds) • Increase access to quality seeds and fertilizer (distribution, selling points) • Increase implementation of bio-fortified crops • Expand and strengthen the ICT for Agriculture • Extend financing services at affordable interest rates • Encourage contract farming, leading to increased coverage of financing and uptake of modern technologies • Increase reach of extension services to small-holder farmers • Customized Agriculture Extension to address the real farmers’ needs • Promotion of small livestock • Enable import of ingredients to produce low-cost animal feed and support private sector to produce feeds • Local feed production of animal feeds • Increase research into genetic improvements, breeding Commitments contributing to achieve SDGs 2030 • Double yield of key crops or reach at least 70% of potential (which-ever is higher) (2024) • 980,000 ha land consolidated (2024) • 75% of farmers use quality seeds (2024) • 75 kg/ha of fertilizer (2024) • 102,284 ha irrigated (2024) • 82% of farmers receive extension service • Production of pork to 79,000 MT and poultry to 42,000 MT • Enable animal feed processing plants to operate at full capacity Accessibility of nutritious food Challenges: Inadequate infrastructure, Post-harvest handling infrastructure such as Feeder roads Game changing solutions • Increase investment in distribution channels (incl. cold-chains), markets, post-harvest handling • Improve infrastructure: distributions chains (incl. cold-chains), post-harvest handling and processing • Reduce food loss: invest in infrastructure and technology and capacity building • Africa Centre of Excellence for sustainable Cooling and Cold-chain • Increase regional trade (improve common standards and easy certification, reduce tariff and non-tariff barriers Commitments contributing to achieve SDGs 2030 • 30,000 km of feeder roads (2024) • Private/Public sector investment into distribution channels • Expand storage facilities, reserves and management (to avoid losses) Reduce food loss (e.g., maize 12%, cassava 19%, beans 6% by 2024) Affordability Challenge: High-prices of nutritious foods (as per FAO SOFI 2020 report): 89.6% cannot afford a healthy diet • Game changing solutions: Invest in innovation to cut down the cost of production Improve safety standards and knowledge of consumers Food Safety Challenge: Insufficient Safety - African Food Safety Index with Food Safety Systems Index (Legal framework, Surveillance programs, laboratory infrastructure); Food safety health index (Foodborne diarrheal disease, FBD-related child death, Prevalence Game changing: -Increase consumer awareness on food safety • Implement/update regulatory framework on food safety • Increase laboratory capacity and number of certified products on the market • Improved coordination of Food Safety Regulatory Agencies236238243248249Availability of nutritious foods: Existing Challenge within Food System :Low yield of major crops compared to the potential yield, Limited uptake of modern technologies, Poor access to financing: 5.2% of credit went to agriculture in 2020; Poor access to financing: 5.2% of credit went to agriculture in 2020; Inadequate knowledge, skills and capacity of farmers (21% of farmer reached by extension services; Low production of Animal Sources Foods, driven by high cost and unavailability of quality animal feed/fodder, genetics/breed, vaccines, etc.; Game changing solutions • Land use consolidation and the introduction of commercial farming (Implementation of Land use and Development master plan 2050) • Modernization of agriculture (erosion control, mechanization and irrigation), • Increasing output of small-holder farmers via better input supply and capacity building • Increase production of animal source foods through focus on small livestock (poultry and pigs), making feed more affordable, improving breeds • Research on high-yield varieties (seeds) • Increase access to quality seeds and fertilizer (distribution, selling points) • Increase implementation of bio-fortified crops • Expand and strengthen the ICT for Agriculture • Extend financing services at affordable interest rates • Encourage contract farming, leading to increased coverage of financing and uptake of modern technologies • Increase reach of extension services to small-holder farmers • Customized Agriculture Extension to address the real farmers’ needs • Promotion of small livestock • Enable import of ingredients to produce low-cost animal feed and support private sector to produce feeds • Local feed production of animal feeds • Increase research into genetic improvements, breeding Commitments contributing to achieve SDGs 2030 • Double yield of key crops or reach at least 70% of potential (which-ever is higher) (2024) • 980,000 ha land consolidated (2024) • 75% of farmers use quality seeds (2024) • 75 kg/ha of fertilizer (2024) • 102,284 ha irrigated (2024) • 82% of farmers receive extension service • Production of pork to 79,000 MT and poultry to 42,000 MT • Enable animal feed processing plants to operate at full capacity Accessibility of nutritious food Challenges: Inadequate infrastructure, Post-harvest handling infrastructure such as Feeder roads Game changing solutions • Increase investment in distribution channels (incl. cold-chains), markets, post-harvest handling • Improve infrastructure: distributions chains (incl. cold-chains), post-harvest handling and processing • Reduce food loss: invest in infrastructure and technology and capacity building • Africa Centre of Excellence for sustainable Cooling and Cold-chain • Increase regional trade (improve common standards and easy certification, reduce tariff and non-tariff barriers Commitments contributing to achieve SDGs 2030 • 30,000 km of feeder roads (2024) • Private/Public sector investment into distribution channels • Expand storage facilities, reserves and management (to avoid losses) Reduce food loss (e.g., maize 12%, cassava 19%, beans 6% by 2024) Affordability Challenge: High-prices of nutritious foods (as per FAO SOFI 2020 report): 89.6% cannot afford a healthy diet • Game changing solutions: Invest in innovation to cut down the cost of production Improve safety standards and knowledge of consumers Food Safety Challenge: Insufficient Safety - African Food Safety Index with Food Safety Systems Index (Legal framework, Surveillance programs, laboratory infrastructure); Food safety health index (Foodborne diarrheal disease, FBD-related child death, Prevalence • Game changing: Increase consumer awareness on food safety • Implement/update regulatory framework on food safety • Increase laboratory capacity and number of certified products on the market • Improved coordination of Food Safety Regulatory Agencies

2021-06-02 10:13:48204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/2850/203

7031733631674772268440495306278404942846

The organization of this dialogue was built on the recognized need of urgency for Africa to address its food system challenges to achieve the SDGs, particularly SDG2. In respecting the principle of multi-stakeholder inclusivity, participation in both webinars was not restricted, but opened to the key stakeholders in the food system fraternity. The announcement of the dialogue on the website of the FSSD gave opportunity for a wide range of stakeholders to be informed about the dialogue. During the first webinar, a keynote address on ‘Raising the Productivity of Africa’s Food systems: A question of Science Technology and Innovation’ was delivered after which a panel discussion was held to respond to the keynote address. To further incorporate the principle of complementing the work of the different stakeholders in the African food system, panelists were carefully selected form the different facets of the food system including research, producers’ organizations, policy makers, and extension services. The main output of the webinar was a draft One Africa Voice (Policy Brief) which aimed at bringing out the specific and science evidence-based actions that supports the achievement of SDG2 by African countries.The dialogue recognized that the issues of Africa food system are complex and diverse. The dialogue also recognized that to address these issues, different stakeholders need to be brought on board and remain active, and work to complement the efforts of each other. With this background, the dialogue was opened to any stakeholder who recognizes the urgent need to improve the food system in Africa. Furthermore, discussants at the dialogue were meticulously selected from a broad spectrum of actors in the food system that are involved, contribute, are affected, and also benefit from agricultural research and development on the continent.Other Dialogue Conveners should take time to reflect on the principles of engagement during the planning stage of their dialogues. This will guide them in the planning and execution of the dialogues in terms of the selection of keynote speakers and panelists of their dialogues.

Yes

234238239240241242244245246248249251The dialogue focused on a comprehensive exploration of the Africa food system. From 2016 to 2018, Africa imported about 85% of its food from outside the continent. The Challenge for Africa to feed itself and become a major food supplier for the world is compounded by the need to produce healthier, safer, and more nutritious food on less land, using less water and chemicals, and producing less waste and less greenhouse gases. The demands explain why Africa resolved to develop a Science Agenda for Agriculture in Africa with a vision aptly stated as: “By 2030 Africa is food secure, a global scientific player, and the world’s breadbasket”. The structural inefficiencies of Africa’s agri-food systems, however, arguably emanate from the fractured dual economy. Most of the rural agrarian population small family farms (SFFs) and small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) largely disconnected from supplying the manufacturing-industrial part of the economy. While SFFs account for the largest proportion of the domestic food market, that market is almost entirely reliant on artisanal processing, whose market is separate market from the manufactured goods and services market. As such, poverty continues as the main cause of hunger. Apart from hunger and malnutrition, extreme poverty in Africa has increased from 413 million in 2015 to 437 million in 2019 (5.8%). Forecasts suggest that without significant shifts in policy, extreme poverty will still be in the double digits in sub-Saharan Africa by 2030. The source of agricultural growth in Africa has largely been through expansion of the cultivated area at the expense of forests, grasslands, and other uses, rather than from increased productivity. A recent study by FAO on land use changes between 2000 and 2018 indicates that about 12 million hectares of forests were cleared and converted to cropland, constituting about 58% of the cleared forest areas. In addition, close to 11 million hectares of grassland was converted to cropland, constituting about 46% of the cleared grasslands giving way to cropland. This is not sustainable! Post-harvest losses in Africa are estimated to be about 14%, one of the largest in a context of low production overall. Water use efficiency has been the lowest, showing only marginal improvement overtime – and this with comparatively lower water stress levels. Also, according to FAOs Agriculture Orientation Index for Government Expenditure between 2001 and 2018, Sub-Saharan Africa has fared the worst when it comes to allocation of public investment to agriculture – it revolves around 0.2 without showing notable improvement over the period. This is notwithstanding the CAADP commitment to allocate at least 10% of national budgets to agriculture. No wonder that Africa is a net importer of food, despite the huge potential. On the positive side, the potentials for increased productivity and opportunities for agri-food transformation are quite enormous. For example, according to some estimates, Africa could be two-three times more productive if it gets its agri-food systems in order, which means getting priorities right in terms of policy, governance, and investment. AfDB estimates that the value of annual agricultural output would increase from US$ 280 billion to as much as US$ 1 trillion by the year 2030. This potential in embodied in the current transformations taking place to include: positive food demand growth from the urbanization process; diet diversification; food supply chain transformation already emerging; factor market changes happening that promote economic converge235238239240241242244245246248249251Sustainable food systems incorporate an understanding of transformation and linked to the aspirations of the 2030 Agenda. The game-changing options for agri-food systems transformation were identified and discussed as follows. Accelerating the integration of SSFs and SMEs into industrial food system processes: that penetrate the mainstream markets, transforming the agri-food system from the “old economy” based on artisanal technologies to “new economy”. Africa’s unorthodox structural transformation is also such that there is rapid urbanisation with no manufacturing jobs in the cities. A deeper analysis places the agri-food system at the centre of orthodox structural transformation that pulls in the majority of SFFs and SMEs into industrial processes of mass production, mass processing, and mass consumption of food products and services by a growing rural middle class and bulging urban population. In many regions outside of Africa, agriculture is increasingly organized more like manufacturing – facilitated through technological advances to manipulate and control the production process and its ecosystems. Agricultural commodities produced under different contexts and regimes meet at the local market places – often resulting in displacements of less-competitive products and systems. In the face of large and rising food imports, African local products are often on the displacement side of the equation. Aggregation and agrologists for SFFs and SMEs: Bridging the gaps between supply and demand through aggregation systems. A good example is the aggregator model developed by Africa Harvest and deployed along the Sorghum value chain in Kenya, and parts of Tanzania, which has fast tracked the commercialization of Sorghum production among smallholder producers in arid and semi-arid areas of the country, working with a large off taker in the malting industry. The role of private sector players, especially that of end-users/processors is pivotal in this drive through Africa’s rapid urbanisation will also be converted to an innovative advantage given that the urban population already consumes more than 50% of the food although they are less than 50% of the population. This will be achieved through aggregation and agro-logistical innovations that will see SSFs and SMEs achieve economies of scale and dominate both rural and urban the food systems’ value chains, especially in industrial processes.provision of sustainable local off-take SMES & other markets. Inter- and Intra-Regional Food Trade: Free Trade Agreement would expand intra-regional trade in agri-food products by 20 to 30 percent by 2040, with particular gains in sugar, fruits and vegetable, nuts, beverages and dairy products. A handful of African countries account for the massive US$ 35-40 billion food importation bill. To reverse this trend, there is need for enabling monetary and fiscal polies, trade regulations, as well as institutional and technological innovations that will catalyse infrastructural development, as well as aggressive facilitation of inter- and intra-regional trade. The top priority of AfCFTA (African Continental Free Trade Area) being food transfers from the majority African countries with a positive food balance sheet to the deficit ones. Workforce reconfiguration: Without significant investment in improving human capacity and infrastructure for agricultural research, training and extension the necessary transformation of African agriculture and food systems will not occur. Facilitating Innovation platforms and the use of ICT tools for long term sustainability; Development of innovation ecosystems within and across value chains and leveraging. All the transformations above will need an urgent shift in the agri-food systems workforce configuration from pre-occupation with farm production, to expansion into badly needed skills in food processing and service industries. Bridging the missing middle between the global-scale scientific options and the local and national level capacities to innovate and share. One CGIAR concept is expected to enhance the implementation of this agenda. This and many other conversations about the enhancement of the agricultural value chains have been discussed during the last fifteen years have been on the front burners but success continues to elude our continent in these regards. Unfortunately, the question of institutional capacities to embrace and deploy contemporary technologies remain our Achilis heel in our quest towards food self-sufficiency. It is, thus, important to invest in research and development to strengthen understanding of nature-positive production systems while increasing cooperation between public and the private sector.236238239240242244246249251Participants in the dialogue expressed the view of an urgent need for a broad-based partnership between the major stakeholders and players across the entire agricultural and food system and innovation systems. This collaboration needs to provide strategic platform that fosters continental and global collective actions including networking to strengthen the innovation to impact pathways of Africa’s agricultural research and food systems. Participants identified the main call to action by the STI community in Africa should action such as; Upgrade existing domestic food system processes as a bigger priority than FDI in the upgrading of domestic and local food processing technology from artisanal to industrial scale food processing. Also, the need to diversify food systems agro-industrial activities, products, and services, as distinct from prioritizing upgrades to existing products is eminent. Participants identified the need to Strengthen SFFs and SMEs along entire value chains to bolster aggregation and agro-logists: truckers, wholesalers, warehousing, pre-processing, etc. Furthermore, the food industry research needs to be disintegrated into industry food systems needs: BIOCHEMISTRY of basic food fermentations; NUTRITIONAL outcomes under alternative processing technologies. Participants further identified the need enhance capacity for a steady flow of trained scientific & technical skills along the value chain: Farm production; Food and animal feed industries; Processing and packaging; Manufacturing & bio-chem engineering; Storage cold-chain logistics infrastructure; Supply chain management skills.237238239240244246249251Participants discussed the various means and approaches to enhance the food system in Africa during a breakout session. The views expressed in the various participants in the dialogue were generally convergent. This is because participants generally agreed on the urgent need to improve the current food system scenario on the continent to reduce food insecurity and malnutrition. Participants further agreed generally on the actions that need to be taken in the short term, the medium term, and the long term to address the issues that confront the food system in Africa.

https://faraafrica.community/fara-net

2021-06-02 10:14:35204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/6450/76

531543441333411901064957319386846573193

The organization of this dialogue was built on the recognized need of urgency for Africa to address its food system challenges to achieve the SDGs, particularly SDG2. In respecting the principle of multi-stakeholder inclusivity, participation in both webinars was not restricted, but opened to the key stakeholders in the food system fraternity. The announcement of the dialogue on the website of the FSSD gave opportunity for a wide range of stakeholders to be informed about the dialogue. The main objective of the dialogue was to validate the draft One Africa Voice on AR&D Policy Brief that is expected to be fed into the UN FSS process through the Science Group of the Summit. A key feature of the dialogue was a parallel multi-channel breakout session which allowed participants to join four stakeholder groups including Youth and gender actors; Farmers, private sector and other non-state actors; Research, extension, and education actors; and Policy makers and investors. Each of these groups was be facilitated to validate the policy brief, and this was done to enhance the principle of trust and multi-stakeholder inclusivity.The dialogue recognized that the issues of Africa food system are complex and diverse. The dialogue also recognized that to address these issues, different stakeholders need to be brough on board and remain active, and work to complement the efforts of each other. With this background, the dialogue was opened to any stakeholder who recognizes the urgent need to improve the food system in Africa. Furthermore, discussants at the dialogue were meticulously selected from a broad spectrum of actors in the food system that are involved, contribute, are affected, and also benefit from agricultural research and development on the continent.Other Dialogue Convenors should take time to reflect on the principles of engagement during the planning stage of their dialogues. This will guide them in the planning and execution of the dialogues in terms of the selection of keynote speakers and panelists of their dialogues.

Yes

234238239240241242244245246248249251The discussion on the Africa food system centered on the main challenges and concrete steps that need to be taken by Africa countries to improve the continent’s food system. As far as Action Track 1 is concerned, participants identified that productivity levels for both crops and livestock are at lowest levels compounded by high post-harvest losses (about 14%) and hence more than 237 million Africans suffer from chronic malnutrition and high incidence of foodborne illnesses leading to over 130,000 deaths and 91 million acute illnesses. The challenges related to Action Track 2 were identified as poor diets being the leading global health risk and accounting for 11 million premature deaths globally, and its irreversible effects of child undernutrition. Also, in Africa, 33% of adults are overweight, with a further 11% tending towards obesity. Furthermore, levels of diet-related non-communicable diseases are rising because of rapid urbanization, and rapidly changing food systems. Diets have become the leading contributor to global environmental degradation, affecting land, water, biodiversity, climate, and air quality. With respect to Action Track 3, participants noted that, agriculture uses 34% of all land on the planet, withdraws 70% of fresh water, and is responsible for 68% of total biodiversity loss (70% on land and 50% in freshwater). Also, growth in production is mainly achieved through the expansion of the cultivated area which resulted in the conversion of 12 million ha of forests to cropland. Beside these challenges, Africa identified as the most vulnerable to climate change despite its marginal (2-3%) contribution to the emission of greenhouse gasses. Socio-cultural drivers underpinning inequalities among and within African societies and structural barriers for several groups, particularly women and youth, including land rights, access to financial services, among others were identified as the main issues confronting Action Track 4. The main challenges that were identified to militate against Action Track 5 in Africa include the recurrent crises and stresses that leave Africans to struggle to recover and inability to improve well-being. Similarly, the likelihood for Africa food systems to face complex challenges to deliver sufficient, safe, and nutritious food for all in the next decade and the Covid-19 pandemic is delivering new severe shocks to food systems, impacting demand and supply potentially leaving an additional 132 million people undernourished worldwide. Minimal changes in technology uptake, productivity, climate protection, post-harvest storage, processing, and marketing innovation are found to be the main challenge to Action Track 6 in Africa. Based on these challenges, the following recommendations were made by participants in the collective effort to enhance the Africa food system towards the achievement of the SDGs, most importantly, SDG 2. 1. Increase public investment. 2. Build appropriate capacity (infrastructure, equipment, and expertise) at local level 3. Build and strengthen solidarity and collective actions through partnerships 4. Enhance the capacity of farmers and consumers to contribute to research and innovation, and to policy formulation 5. Harness the potential of the youth, women, and persons with disability to participate in the food system equitably and gainfully. 6. Create a regional pool for financial resources to be accessed by institutions and governments 7. Co-creation of technologies and innovations with farmers.235238239240241244246248249251The dialogue came up with five main key finding/recommendations that need to be implemented to enhance the Africa food system including Getting the narratives right on the priorities and incentives The major issues are related to policy, governance, and investment. According to FAO’s Agriculture Orientation Index for Government Expenditure, between 2001 and 2018, SSA has fared the worst when it comes to allocation of public investment to agriculture – it revolves around 3.3% without showing notable improvement over the period. This is notwithstanding the CAADP’s commitment to allocate at least 10% of the national budgets to agriculture. The underinvestment in STI shows that policymakers are not convinced about the returns (economic, strategic, and political) accruing from investment in food and agriculture versus other sectors. The fact that Africans can afford to pay USD 50 billion in importing food shows that the resources exist. What is lacking is the political will to invest in the systems that support national food systems to make them more self-sufficient in food. This is also a reflection of weaknesses in the governance of food and agriculture. Exploring what is emerging and how it can be considered as an opportunity Action track 3 calls for improvement in the sustainability of agri-food systems, in terms of protecting, managing, and restoring ecosystems to “produce more from less”. Clearly, it does not bode well for Africa to continue the practice of deforestation to expand agricultural land. A full contribution of the linkages of climate change in agriculture to food systems, markets and energy should also be explored. Naturally, nature-positive solutions are context-specific and based on bottom-up and territorial processes, and can be strengthened by science, technology, and innovation as well as by enabling policy environments and improved governance systems. Africa can have a comparative advantage and make a significant contribution in this regard. Practically, supporting farmers to differentiate products and develop means of accessing markets will not only boost agroecological production patterns but also create demand for sustainable production systems. Bridging the missing middle point between the global-scale scientific options and the local and national level capacities to innovate and share Agricultural commodities produced under different contexts and regimes meet at the local marketplaces – often resulting in displacements of less-competitive products and systems. In the face of large and rising food imports, African local products are often on the displacement side of the equation. This is attributed to the fragmentation and inefficiencies in the “missing middle” that increase the production and marketing costs of African food products. Bridging the missing middle entails building capacities for innovation from the bottom up. Women constitute a large part of food production, thus supporting the self-organized groups with structural assets can increase women’s participation in decision-making. Embracing a systems approach and catalyzing non-State Actors (private sector, farmers, NGOs) Improving a food system necessarily calls for a systems approach which in turn entails devising an institutional mechanism for the relevant actors to work systemically. Concerning AR4D, Innovation platforms that bring together stakeholders with a common interest to leverage skills, research technologies, competencies, markets, financing, social capital, and other resources are critical for economies of scale in the deployment of technologies and innovations. Adopting foresight methodologies will also contribute to valorization of strategic products such as cocoa, cashew nuts among others while supporting financiers in developing credit-friendly products for the producers. Market-driven approaches should be promoted and strengthened, given that they can serve as reinforcement of agroecological production patterns. Creating an enabling policy environment for Raising the Productivity of Africa’s Food Systems Governments and their higher-level structures at the regional and continental level (i.e. RECs and the AUC) should take responsibility for directing this transformation and provide opportunities for closer engagement with all actors in the food system. The policy environment is the most critical factor that will underpin the continent’s transform. The policy environment should assure that activities and services across the entire spectrum of the food system function to accelerate progress to the achievement of SDG 2 (zero hunger).236238239240242244245246248251Five (5) main topics were discussed during the dialogue regarding actions that need to be taken urgently to turn around and enhance the food system of Africa. The topics which ranged from investment to youth and gender include Increasing Investment in AR4D in Africa; Building appropriate capacities in terms of infrastructure, equipment, and human (experts); Building and strengthening solidarity and collective actions through partnerships; Enhancing capacities of farmers and consumers to contribute to AR4D; and Harnessing the potential of the youth equitably and gainfully participate in AR4D. The discussions on the first topic yielded recommendations including strengthened advocacy through the preparation and presentation to policy makers evidence on returns to investment in research and innovation. Also, getting beneficiaries and users of AR4D products to contribute towards research and innovation was recommended, and forging a stronger enforcement of agreed upon targets as well as providing incentives for private sector to invest in AR4D were further recommended during the discussion. Participants recommended that in order to build capacities appropriate for AR4D, there is the need to strengthen the capacities of farmers and SMEs to profitably adopt technologies, strengthen the capacities of African institutions to generate new knowledge and technologies and adapt those generated from elsewhere, and the strengthen the institutional and physical infrastructure for scaling up innovations in the food system. Devoting greater attention to regional approaches to AR4D through regional programmes and strengthening regional institutions for research, extension, education, farmers, youth, Agribusiness, Policy were found o be some of the approaches that need to be used to build and strengthen solidarity and collective actions through partnership. The discussion on the need to harness the potential of the youth to participate in AR4D recommended the shared responsibility and the need to invest in capacity development and business incubation for the youth in agriculture and food. Also, the urgent need to formulate and implement affirmative actions for youth in relation to access to knowledge, land, financial services, green jobs, and markets was highly recommended to be looked at in Africa’s quest to harness the potential of its youth to participate in AR4D.237238239240242244246248249251Participants discussed the various means and approaches to enhance the food system in Africa during a breakout session. The breakout session was made up of groups including Youth and gender actors; Farmers, private sector, and other non-state actors; Research, extension, and education actors; and Policy makers and investors. The views were collated in a form of a poll and results collated as representation of the views expressed by participants in those groups. Though views expressed in the various groups were generally convergence, there were few divergence views that are worth mentioning. Policy makers and investors; and the Youth and gender actors had divergence views on how to Increase public investment in AR4D. while the policy makers highly recommended increased incentives for the private sector to invest in AR4D, the Youth and Gender group recommended stronger enforcement of agreed-upon targets as the means to increase investment in AR4D. Also, the youth/gender group and the farmers group had divergence view on how to harness the potentials of the youth to participate in AR4D equitably and gainfully. Whiles the youth/gender group recommended increased investment in capacity development and business incubation for the youth in agriculture and food, the farmer group recommended the formulation and implementation of affirmative actions for youth in relation to access to knowledge, land, financial services, green jobs, and markets as the approach to achieve the objective.

https://faraafrica.community/fara-net

2021-06-02 10:26:19205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/8907/153

130

All principles for UN Food Systems summit respected

Yes

234239243246247248249251This dialogue was led by Ministry of Health and co-leaded by UNICEF in collaboration with National Childhood Development Agency and WHO. The dialogue aimed at exchanging on promoting and creating demand for healthy and sustainable diets among Rwandan population; reducing waste while achieving optimal nutrition among Rwandan population at all life stages of lifespan. Thematic areas discussed included among the early childhood age (0-5), school age from early learning to the university and special group (pregnant women, diabetics, adolescents) and reduction of food waste among childhood, school age and adults. During the dialogues, the participants focused on identifying ways Rwanda can: • Promote and create demand for healthy and sustainable diet • Reduce food waste • Identify and recommend appropriate strategies required to create healthy and sustainable diet The participants also made sure to discuss on cross-cutting issues regarding women and youth empowerment and how this segment of the population can contribute to sustainable healthy consumptions.235239243248249251Topic 1: Creating demand for healthy and sustainable diets Existing challenge within Food Systems: 1. Huge gap between knowledge and practices for healthy diets including utilization of animal source foods Game changing solutions • Investing in the development of strong and innovative social and behaviour change interventions/strategies to empower different categories of the population and enable them to translate knowledge into desirable behaviour and practices (both industry and consumers) hence contributing to nutrition overall outcome. • Knowledge management to provide accurate and timely data for nutrition programming to create demand and promoting consumption of nutritious food (evidence supported interventions/strategies). • Interventions promoting production of nutritious foods through agricultural extension • Capacity development for nutrition programming including strengthening M&E and systematic coordination for accountability (government and civil society). 2. Access to safe water by all Game changing solutions: Increase safe water access to improve hygiene and sanitation at household level. 3. Existing legislative framework does not promote healthy diets Game changing solutions: Put in place stronger legislation that is pro-nutrition such as: • Code to regulate the marketing of breastmilk substitutes in order to protect breastfeeding, • Laws regulating marketing of unhealthy foods including sugar sweetened beverages, which is directly linked to growing overweight and obesity in children and adolescents, • Labelling: front of pack nutrition and eco labelling helping consumers to make informed choices, thereby promoting healthy diets, • Policy framework promoting fortification of complementary foods and staple foods with micronutrients as an approach to cost-effective intervention to combat hidden hunger in children, young people and women (through public-private partnership and collaboration). Topic 2: Food Waste Existing Challenges: Insufficient affordable and quality food preservation/processing mechanism (post-harvest food loss prevention of perishable produces) Game changing solutions: Post-harvest strategies and policies to reduce food waste at all levels (including new and affordable technologies to tackle Postharvest loss; improve farmer’s knowledge and skills on food processing and preservation). Topic 3: Women and Youth empowerment (cross-cutting) Existing challenges: Limited access to income to prioritize and invest in nutritious food Game changing Solutions: Multi-sectoral interventions to empower women and youth across food systems including enhancing their decision-making power, ensuring access to information and skills addressing social norms that limit healthy food consumption. Topic 4: Strengthening national coordination, M&E to improve nutrition: Game changing solutions: Capacity development for nutrition programming including strengthening M&E and systematic coordination for accountability (government and civil society).236239243247248249251Topic 1: Creating demand for healthy and sustainable diets Existing challenge within Food Systems: 1. Huge gap between knowledge and practices for healthy diets including utilization of animal source foods Game changing solutions • Investing in the development of strong and innovative social and behaviour change interventions/strategies to empower different categories of the population and enable them to translate knowledge into desirable behaviour and practices (both industry and consumers) hence contributing to nutrition overall outcome. • Knowledge management to provide accurate and timely data for nutrition programming to create demand and promoting consumption of nutritious food (evidence supported interventions/strategies). • Interventions promoting production of nutritious foods through agricultural extension • Capacity development for nutrition programming including strengthening M&E and systematic coordination for accountability (government and civil society). 2. Access to safe water by all Game changing solutions: Increase safe water access to improve hygiene and sanitation at household level. 3. Existing legislative framework does not promote healthy diets Game changing solutions: Put in place stronger legislation that is pro-nutrition such as: • Code to regulate the marketing of breastmilk substitutes in order to protect breastfeeding, • Laws regulating marketing of unhealthy foods including sugar sweetened beverages, which is directly linked to growing overweight and obesity in children and adolescents, • Labelling: front of pack nutrition and eco labelling helping consumers to make informed choices, thereby promoting healthy diets, • Policy framework promoting fortification of complementary foods and staple foods with micronutrients as an approach to cost-effective intervention to combat hidden hunger in children, young people and women (through public-private partnership and collaboration). Topic 2: Food Waste Existing Challenges: Insufficient affordable and quality food preservation/processing mechanism (post-harvest food loss prevention of perishable produces) Game changing solutions: Post-harvest strategies and policies to reduce food waste at all levels (including new and affordable technologies to tackle Postharvest loss; improve farmer’s knowledge and skills on food processing and preservation). Topic 3: Women and Youth empowerment (cross-cutting) Existing challenges: Limited access to income to prioritize and invest in nutritious food Game changing Solutions: Multi-sectoral interventions to empower women and youth across food systems including enhancing their decision-making power, ensuring access to information and skills addressing social norms that limit healthy food consumption. Topic 4: Strengthening national coordination, M&E to improve nutrition: Game changing solutions: Capacity development for nutrition programming including strengthening M&E and systematic coordination for accountability (government and civil society).2372391. Areas that need further exploration: • Investing in the development of strong and innovative social and behaviour change interventions/strategies to empower different categories of the population • Put in place legislative framework which promote healthy diets • Put in place post-harvest strategies and policies to reduce food waste at all levels • Establishment of coordination mechanisms at central & decentralized level. 2. practices that are needed for food system sustainability, Post-harvest strategies and policies to reduce food waste at all levels (including new and affordable technologies to tackle Postharvest loss; improve farmer’s knowledge and skills on food processing and preservation). 3. Stakeholders whose interests should be prioritized.

2021-06-02 10:42:10204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/10415/203

303134152211451614232132126274242351

The dialogue was built on the recognized urgent need for strengthening the engagement among research, extension, and private sector to increase gender-responsive investments in AR4D. in respect of the principle of multi-stakeholder inclusivity, FARA together with AWARD, AFAAS, and the sub regional organizations (ASARECA, CORAF, CCARDESA), engaged with a wide range of stakeholders who participated openly and actively. The dialogue employed a facilitation approach, panel discussions, poll questions and open feedback to ensure robust discussion on gender inclusivity in the private sector engagement. The announcement of the webinar was made on all partner platforms including the Food Systems fraternity. A key-note address was given by the custodian of gender equality change lever of the UN Food Systems Summit who gave insights on Gender-Responsive Investments in Africa’s Agriculture for Inclusive Food Systems. The follow up panel discussion responded to the key-note address. Panelist were carefully selected from private sector, youth business, regional economic community, development partner, extension, and research. The main output of the webinar was a draft policy brief on prioritizing gender-responsive and inclusive investments in Agriculture, which aimed at bringing the specific science evidence-based actions that supports the achievement of SDGs by African Countries.The dialogue recognized that the issues of Gender equality in Africa’s Food System are complex and diverse. The dialogue also recognized that to address these issues, there is a need to engage stakeholders who realize the urgent need to increase investment in gender responsive approaches. It is anticipated that the stakeholders will remain active, and work to complement the efforts of each other. Additionally, the panelists and discussions were addressed by stakeholders who were carefully selected to represent the wide range of actors including men, women, and youth, in efforts to ensure inclusivity in the joint actions. Also, the dialogue reflected specific aspects of the UN-FSS principles through different stakeholders’ consultation, whereby break out sessions were convened representing the different sub regions in Africa, including extension services. Key areas of focus were capacity strengthening, strategies for adoption and policy recommendations towards increased gender inclusive investments.The dialogue recognizes the importance of engagement with multiple stakeholders as the diverse views provide broader insights into specific actions. This increases the sense of ownership by all stakeholders towards implementing actions leading to achievement of SGDs.

Yes

234238241242243244245246247248249251The dialogue focused on an exploration of private sector investment in gender-responsive food system in Africa. It was noted that despite important initiatives advocating for gender equality for African agriculture development, there is still an increasing demand in the continent to ensure greater visibility and productivity for women who are central to food production and food security on the continent. On the topic of equal access – There is ample evidence suggesting that there is substantial difference in women and men access, use of financial services and capital. Women, however, still lack savings, collateral to start new businesses and grow existing ones. Most often, social, and institutional support systems do not protect farmers, particularly women farmers against lost and shocks. Discussions on capacity development within the sector, women in Africa largely lack essential business skill, particularly rural women. There are still gender differentiator social capital in terms of access to the network and social interaction that promotes business for both women and men, especially in the rural areas. The institutional framework for promoting private sector investment across Africa, are still skewed in favor of foreign direct investment, and still not targeted at indigenous growth. Thus, the institutional framework is still relatively weak or lacking in different countries. While there are gross variations across countries in Africa, many institutions are still not investing adequately in gender-inclusive strategies and actions. For example, growth is still disintegrated, disjointed across the value chains development (production, processing, distribution, or consumption). Most private sector development investment and service providers still advocate in the agricultural sector, demonstrating a lack of gender competencies. Gender-specific needs of men and women, therefore, need to be prioritized. Policy programmes and agricultural development strategies must include their interest and intersections with other identity actors. On the other hand, the dialogue recognized that agricultural value chains begin at the research stage and must begin by supporting the ability of researchers to lead and develop gender-responsive innovations. Agricultural value chains start at the research stage and embed the gender lens at the beginning-end of the value chains. Evidence has confirmed that gender-responsive research is more efficient, more inclusive, better targeted, and more relevant innovations with higher adoption rates. Most important are the ongoing efforts by AWARD, to ensure that women are conducting research and are also empowered to deliver the very best for the continent. AWARD has therefore developed a model that tracks what empowerment looks like, and some of the elements measured are power from within, power to do, power over resources – the power to be able to attract funding, for example into their research institutions, power to collaborate – that’s power with, and most importantly, the power to empower others. The dialogue therefore embodied an open collaboration in building science skills, synergy, expanding networks, growing institutional capacity, advancing women leadership in Agricultural research, advancing policy for inclusive agricultural research and collaborative training.235238241242243244245246247248249251Attaining sustainable inclusion of women in Africa’s’ Food System, requires a set of game-changing actions by stakeholders. These include but are not limited to: Increase capacity to a gender-inclusive private sector engagement. Access to proven technologies will help improve food production and food security, and job and wealth creation for women and youth across the value chains. Having the technology at scale will help more women and youth to access the technology for their agribusiness development. Thus, the need for private sector engagement to produce the technology and put them at scale. Additionally, promotion of gender-sensitive technology that meet women’s needs, labor-saving and very simple to operate by non-educated youth. Hence, promoting research products that do not add to women’s daily workload and household engagements. With the availability of proven technologies, the private sector can put them at scale and enable conditions to facilitate the adoption and use of the technologies by women and youth. Therefore, it is essential to build the capacity of women and youth for efficient use of the technology. This can be across the incubation centers or other ways of mechanism for capacity building. Similarly, capacity building is needed for the private sector to address the specific needs of women and youth in terms of technologies and solutions that fit their needs and other productive resources to increase sustainable agribusiness development. Building up policy support for gender-responsive investment. Research must aim to solve the market's need and be in line with the need for women who are primarily involved in agricultural trade. Also, research must consider women and meet their needs. Research must, therefore, target at developing products that meet the needs of women who use agricultural services. Ensure inclusivity and diversity in frameworks by considering the needs of women and vulnerable groups and establish approaches that meet the needs of all groups of people. This can be done by understanding the environment to develop policies that cover the different cultures of the people they will serve towards ensuring collective uptake of policies and participation of all actors. Advocacy by RECs for gender-responsive products and investments at member states is also crucial while at the same time, RECs to leverage their position as regional coordinators to mobilize support for gender-response policies in member states. On extension, the ratio of women extension to men is very low most because extension agent and services are not gender sensitive. In some countries like Ethiopia and Sudan, women have almost no access to extension services. In Sierra Leone, for example, less than 5% of women have access to extension agent. This is limiting women’s productivity/yields. To solve the financial issue for women, a women’s cooperative can be created to train them on business practices and technology and increase the ratio of women extension agents in agricultural services. Cultural and religious barriers for instance, where men do not want their women to be in close contact with men, often limit women’s access to extension services or resources. Develop Strategies for implementing a gender-responsive food system. Women need to be provided with the solution because they need the solutions, research products, communication products, market access and linkages. So, women need to be involved in developing the solutions. Research needs to have them at the table to let the researchers know what they need and vice-versa. There is a need to put the women at the forefront, to be the advisers to researchers as they conduct their research and other field experiments. There is a need to design an approach that encompasses all the groups and meet the need of all the people including the youth, vulnerable groups, and women. Also, there is a need to operate intelligently on the uneven field, making it even and bring onboard women and the vulnerable group to have a part in this uneven environment where the policymakers and private sectors tend to dominate and exclude the women. Hence, we need to ensure that our framework brings women, vulnerable groups, and youth onboard to have a voice in this uneven terrain. Member states need to push for policies that address critical issues for women and youth. Also, RECs have a solid role to play in lobbying, advocating and influence investments and gender-responsive products. Exploring an integrated or combination approach is critical given that gender is a cross-cutting approach, and it involves different institutions and stakeholders. Stakeholders should therefore examine the involvement of the private sector because most are looking at profit-making as their primary interest. Hence, the need for a balanced perspective to understand why the private sector wants to advocate and help mainstream issues of gender. Private sector involvement is essential, but there is a need to define the extent of their participation, especially in assessing and managing risks. It is therefore imperative to strengthen advocacy towards ensuring that women’s livelihoods are sustained, and their working conditions are improved and not exploited.2362382412422442452462472482492511. Capacity for gender-inclusive private sector engagement i. Access to proven technologies will help improve food production and food security, and job and wealth creation for women and youth across the value chains. ii. Promotion of gender-sensitive technology that meet women’s needs, labor-saving and very simple to operate by non-educated youth. iii. Build the capacity of women and youth for efficient use of the technology. This can be across the incubation centres or other ways of mechanism for capacity building. iv. Capacity building is needed for the private sector to address the specific needs of women and youth in terms of technologies and solutions that fit their needs and other productive resources to increase sustainable agribusiness development. v. Build technical skills and capacity of women researchers and provide mentorship to women who tend to be grossly underrepresented in research leadership on the continent 2. Building up policy support for gender-responsive investment i. Research must aim to solve the market's need and consider women’ needs. It must also be targeted at developing products that meet the needs of women who use agricultural services. ii. Policy programmes and agricultural development strategies must include and prioritize gender-specific needs of men and women. iii. Understand the environment to develop policies that cover the different cultures of the people they’ll serve towards ensuring collective uptake of policies and participation of all actors. iv. Regional Economic Communities in Africa must leverage their position as regional coordinators to mobilize support for gender-response policies in member states. v. Member states need to push for a policy that has been made to address critical issues for women and youth. Also, COMESA and other RECs have a solid role to play in lobbying, advocating and influence investments and gender-responsive products 3. Women and youth empowerment i. Empowering women through access to finance and markets while accelerating job creation for women through skills enhancement and increase in women’s access to social services through infrastructural development. ii. Provides quality information for women to scale up modern agriculture practices and enhance access to farm inputs. iii. Provides youth with the complete ecosystem of the value chain in ideation, acceleration, financing, coaching, and mentorships. iv. Improve gender equality and women's empowerment as pathway to get closer to food and nutrition security. v. Strengthen advocacy towards ensuring that women’s livelihoods are sustained and their working conditions are improved and not exploited 4. Data and evidence i. Provide one-stop-shop for gender indicators and sex-disaggregated data across the food systems. ii. Ensure that young people have access to data and accurate data to make a precise decision and scale up their business across the continent. 5. Innovation i. Facilitation and the application of science, technology and innovation in African agriculture while tightening the loop between technology generation, adoption, refinement, use of technologies and its commercialization. ii. Deploy innovative solutions to addressing critical issues on issues on climate change, cultural, political and economic environment, and agricultural systems in particular iii. Develop technologies with the users, the people who will use them because it ensures that they are going to address the needs and priorities of the users.237238241242243244245247248249251Some divergence areas were highlighted during the dialogue as listed below: o In the food systems approach, technology cannot be looked at in isolation. It is not just about putting technology on a farm, but also ensuring that the market systems is working such that if farmers invest in the technology, they can make money out of their investment. o Across countries, mainly agriculture, forestry, natural resource management, climate change, trade policies, and investment do not always include or provide for gender equality and women’s empowerment. In many cases, efforts for women’s empowerment has been limited to initiatives that sometimes fall outside of the policy framework. o When talking about women in agriculture or women in food systems, stakeholders should go back to the roles women play in the sector. Thus, the need to reframe the conversation to reflect how our food and agricultural systems contribute to achieving empowerment and justice. o Agricultural value chains start at the research stage and embed that gender lens at the beginning-end of the value chains is critical. o Governance remains a key part/output for gender-responsive agricultural research. o Gender-responsive policies should not only be limited to production but cutting across the entire agricultural value chains including agri-finance, agro-processing, access to inputs and research. o The pandemic had devastated so much with the countries, but it also presented a tremendous opportunity to show that these adaptations are possible. That, it is possible for people to work from home and be productive. o Recognize that gender mainstreaming is about the empowerment of women and the building of individuals, organizational, and institutional capacities to mainstream gender. o Most agricultural policies mainly focus on the production, processing, and marketing aspects of the value chains. In nearly all cases, these policies do not look at matters on relations of production. o Examine the involvement of the private sector because most are looking at profit-making as their primary interest. Hence, the need for a balanced perspective to understand why the private sector wants to advocate and help mainstream issues of gender.

2021-06-02 10:47:06205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/10124/153

98

All principles were respected

Yes

234240243244248249This dialogue was led by the Ministry of Environment and co-leaded by MINAGRI in collaboration with RDB and UNDP. The participants discussed on the dilemma of increasing food production without expanding agricultural land and threatening natural ecosystems (what are the gaps and challenges faced by country while trying to meet food demand and at the same time preserving the natural resources and biodiversity? what are the solutions and approaches to improve productivity while protecting the threatened ecosystems like wetlands? what policy or institutional frameworks and legislation are needed to boost production while protecting ecosystems?); sustainable management of food production systems to benefit both people and nature (what policies and/or institutional frameworks are needed to boost production while at the same time enhancing resilience to climate change? what types of incentives etc. are needed to support farmers integrate environmental and climate change considerations in farming? what areas along the agriculture value chain are innovations needed? what kind of innovations are needed?) and restoring the degraded ecosystems (what are the needed mechanisms, tools, and instruments - governance, financial, social, technical, etc.- to support implementation of restorative innovations? and how can gender and youth be integrated? how can research play a significant role in restoring and rehabilitating degraded ecosystems and food production systems? what nature based solutions can be adopted or up scaled to restore and rehabilitate degraded systems in Rwanda?235240243244248249Topic 1. Increase food production without expanding agricultural land and threatening natural ecosystems Existing challenge within Food Systems: • Population pressure / Urbanization expansion that are overtaking agricultural land; • Soil degradation due to overexploitation and agricultural malpractices • Inappropriate knowledge on use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides that are causing soil pollution, water pollution and impact on pollinators; • Non availability of sufficient Organic manure; • Shifting of Natural Agro Ecological Zones due to the commerce/market crops domination; Limited availability of quality and diverse seed supply; Game changing solutions • Fast-track the implementation of the Land Use and Development Master plan 2050 and ensure its enforcement to protect and efficiently utilize agriculture land. • Promote agro-systems at local level that utilize ecosystem-based approaches and maximize production on small land (e.g. micro-agriculture, urban agriculture, and landless agriculture). • Investment in research in order to facilitate farmers to obtain quality seeds of the crops most suited to their farming systems, conditions and needs; Topic 2. Sustainable management of food production systems to benefit both people and nature Existing Challenges with food systems: • Food systems do not go beyond agricultural production and do not include all aspects in the value chain from production to consumption. It does not also include nutritional value of food. • The role of the circular economy is not fully considered when analyzing food systems • Limited coordination of efforts as well as consultations in the food system institutional framework. • Lack of tangible data to monitor food systems, including monitoring of beneficiaries and awareness raising on available services along the value chain. • Gap in digital data management and sharing and integrating data along the value chain. • Limited Research and Development and knowledge sharing on enhancing nature-positive agriculture. • Insufficient subsidy programmes on building short-term resilience for smallholder farmers • Limited technologies to improve yield while reducing GHGs and land degradation • Limited use of labour-saving technologies along the value chain in the long-term. development. • Inadequate coordination of actors along the value chain Game changing solutions • Explore opportunities to adopt circular economy into the food systems value chain • Promote the use of technology/innovations that improve yield while reducing GHGs and land degradation • Research in recycling waste from agricultural markets into organic fertilizers through various technologies such as vermicomposting • Enhance inter-ministerial coordination among different sector players to determine the trade-offs between agriculture and environment and strengthen policy coherence/implementation • Effective management of digital data and sharing and to integrate data along the value chain. • Promotion, recovery and reuse of organic waste to restore soil fertility to promote recovery and reuse of both organic waste and wastewater in order to restore and maintain soil fertility. • Increase composting to 100% of households involved in agriculture production by 2030. • Proper management of inorganic fertilizers to contribute to reduction of GHG emissions Restore and rehabilitate degraded systems for sustainable food production and ecosystem services Existing Challenges: • Unsustainable food production (e.g. from expansion and intensification of agriculture) is a major driver of ecosystem degradation and often comes at a cost to ecosystem integrity (e.g. negative impacts on biodiversity & ecosystem services) • There is a huge disconnect between research institutions and the needs of the farmers on ground • Lack of knowledge on how intercropping and zero tillage can contribute to soil conservation and enhance biodiversity • Poor knowledge on the safe use of inorganic fertilizers leads to the degradation of biodiversity and ecosystems • Lack of funds for innovative initiatives that aim at improving ecosystems and biodiversity • Limited awareness of the local community on the importance of maintaining ecosystems and biodiversity Game changing solutions • Scale up initiatives to restore/rehabilitate degraded ecosystems and promote indigenous species in agroforestry and landscape restoration in high-risk areas. • Biodiversity protection (biodiversity awareness trainings at the community levels) • Promote inclusive consultation processes and participatory assessments on land degradation for the design of effective ecosystem restoration strategies through soils, crops, livestock and wildlife management interventions236240244248249Topic 1. Increase food production without expanding agricultural land and threatening natural ecosystems Existing challenge within Food Systems: • Population pressure / Urbanization expansion that are overtaking agricultural land; • Soil degradation due to overexploitation and agricultural malpractices • Inappropriate knowledge on use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides that are causing soil pollution, water pollution and impact on pollinators; • Non availability of sufficient Organic manure; • Shifting of Natural Agro Ecological Zones due to the commerce/market crops domination; Limited availability of quality and diverse seed supply; Game changing solutions • Fast-track the implementation of the Land Use and Development Master plan 2050 and ensure its enforcement to protect and efficiently utilize agriculture land. • Promote agro-systems at local level that utilize ecosystem-based approaches and maximize production on small land (e.g. micro-agriculture, urban agriculture, and landless agriculture). • Investment in research in order to facilitate farmers to obtain quality seeds of the crops most suited to their farming systems, conditions and needs; Topic 2. Sustainable management of food production systems to benefit both people and nature Existing Challenges with food systems: • Food systems do not go beyond agricultural production and do not include all aspects in the value chain from production to consumption. It does not also include nutritional value of food. • The role of the circular economy is not fully considered when analyzing food systems • Limited coordination of efforts as well as consultations in the food system institutional framework. • Lack of tangible data to monitor food systems, including monitoring of beneficiaries and awareness raising on available services along the value chain. • Gap in digital data management and sharing and integrating data along the value chain. • Limited Research and Development and knowledge sharing on enhancing nature-positive agriculture. • Insufficient subsidy programmes on building short-term resilience for smallholder farmers • Limited technologies to improve yield while reducing GHGs and land degradation • Limited use of labour-saving technologies along the value chain in the long-term. development. • Inadequate coordination of actors along the value chain Game changing solutions • Explore opportunities to adopt circular economy into the food systems value chain • Promote the use of technology/innovations that improve yield while reducing GHGs and land degradation • Research in recycling waste from agricultural markets into organic fertilizers through various technologies such as vermicomposting • Enhance inter-ministerial coordination among different sector players to determine the trade-offs between agriculture and environment and strengthen policy coherence/implementation • Effective management of digital data and sharing and to integrate data along the value chain. • Promotion, recovery and reuse of organic waste to restore soil fertility to promote recovery and reuse of both organic waste and wastewater in order to restore and maintain soil fertility. • Increase composting to 100% of households involved in agriculture production by 2030. • Proper management of inorganic fertilizers to contribute to reduction of GHG emissions Restore and rehabilitate degraded systems for sustainable food production and ecosystem services Existing Challenges: • Unsustainable food production (e.g. from expansion and intensification of agriculture) is a major driver of ecosystem degradation and often comes at a cost to ecosystem integrity (e.g. negative impacts on biodiversity & ecosystem services) • There is a huge disconnect between research institutions and the needs of the farmers on ground • Lack of knowledge on how intercropping and zero tillage can contribute to soil conservation and enhance biodiversity • Poor knowledge on the safe use of inorganic fertilizers leads to the degradation of biodiversity and ecosystems • Lack of funds for innovative initiatives that aim at improving ecosystems and biodiversity • Limited awareness of the local community on the

2021-06-02 10:52:27204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/3148/41

10310323124953122232229933124

The Dialogues were organized following the Food Summit Principles of Engagement, where a diverse set of stakeholders had the opportunity to engage in purposeful and respectful exchanges to discuss concrete actions for transforming food systems. Care was taken in the recruitment of participants to have a balance of food system actors present at the Dialogue. In his framing remarks, the Dialogue Curator reinforced the Principles of Engagement, and participants were able to gain of understanding of how the ideas generated throughout the Dialogue would feed into the UN Food Systems Summit. Following opening remark to frame the discussions, participants joined facilitated break-out discussions. Members of the Arrell Food Institute team attended the Curator and Convenor training, and many facilitators attended the training offered by the Summit Dialogues team as well.A large focus of the Dialogue was ensuring multi-stakeholder inclusivity, which was reflected in the diverse set of participants who attended the dialogue. Attracting over 100 participants, the delegates included farmers, researchers, politicians, policy makers, restaurateurs, and NGO representatives. As guided by the facilitators via discussion questions, participants discussed concrete action points and solutions for food system challenges, and the entire Dialogue followed Chatham House Rules so that participants would feel comfortable with sharing their opinions.The advice for other Dialogue Convenors would be to make sure to take advantage of all the resources offered by the Summit Dialogue team, especially the comprehensive Curator and Facilitator trainings. The reference manual offered online is also key resource for gaining understanding of the Summit Principles of Engagement.

Yes

234238239240241242243246248249Ahead of the upcoming United Nations Food Systems Summit, Arrell Food Institute at the University of Guelph hosted three independent Food System Dialogues to bring together voices from across and beyond the Canadian Food System. The first dialogue explored models of collaborative governance to help create holistic and equitable policies and programming for food systems. There were 8 discussion groups in this Dialogue, all of whom discussed one of these three topics: • Top priorities for a Canadian Food Policy Advisory Council • Inequities in power and resources amongst actors in the food system • Pathways to overcome distrust, leading to a greater willingness to engage in meaningful dialogue Framing speakers: Rt Hon Marie-Claude Bibeau, Federal Minister for Agriculture and Agri-Food Evan Fraser, AFI Director235238239240241242243246248249The Canadian Food Policy Advisory Council (CFPAC) is a unique forum that can be leveraged domestically to bring voices from across the Canadian food system together and advise on pressing issues. Collaborative leadership is vital, bringing together a wide variety of perspectives and paying special attention to those who are marginalized. Food systems change will only happen when enough people see how they can benefit from and contribute to that systemic change. Internationally, the CFPAC is a leading example of collaborative food systems governance that can help lead to progress on all of the UNFSS’ action tracks and Levers of Change. Major global trends linked with population growth, climate change, new consumer expectations and novel technologies suggest that the next 10 years may be incredibly disruptive for food systems everywhere. In Canada, we have much to celebrate: our producers are amongst the most environmentally conscious in the world, most Canadians enjoy safe, healthy, and affordable food year-round. Nevertheless, systemic problems of food insecurity and disruptions to the food system caused by the pandemic mean that we need to do better. Together, by embracing models of collaborative governance we can ensure Canada has the tools it needs to continue having one of the greatest food systems in the world. This will not only help support domestic producers and consumers as well as allowing those parts of our food system that depend on exporting to international markets thrive and expand over the next generation.236238239240241242243246248249Action Points: Having trustworthy, accessible and robust processes for making decisions Maintaining effective horizon scanning efforts Building collaborations across other sectors (eg. healthcare, education, economic development) Embracing complexity and building collaborations across stakeholders Trust is key and power dynamics matter Showing successful projects and initiatives237238239240241242243246248249While there were active discussions where divergent views were shared, each group was able to come to a general consensus at the end of their breakout.

2021-06-02 11:00:07205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/10147/153

120

Principles of engagement under UN Food systems dialogues respectedDiversity, inclusivity and complementarity

Yes

234241243246247248249Action Track 4 focuses on inequality and power imbalances at household, community, national and global levels. They are consistently constraining the ability of food systems to deliver poverty reduction and sustainable, equitable livelihoods. For food system to advance equitable livelihoods, we must look at poverty across the food value chain, the groups whose livelihoods are most limited by current food systems practices, and the discriminatory practices and norms that limit equitable livelihoods, in particular for those whose livelihoods are most marginalized (women, youth, people with disabilities). The dialogue focused on 3 thematic areas: • Promoting productive employment and decent work for all: This thematic area included topics such as employment creation, decent work, and rights at work. Discussions revolved around challenges in creating inclusive work opportunities along the food system/value chain, importance of skills development and roles of the private sector such as traders/off-takers, agro-input dealers, and processors. Rwanda’s main employment challenges include working poverty and underemployment (<35 hrs/week), which are underlying causes of the higher poverty rate among rural residents (49%) compared to urban areas (22%). Despite the importance of the agriculture sector in Rwanda's economy, we are yet to create sufficient employment opportunities and the majority of workers are in subsistence agriculture. Through the national dialogue event, we will explore challenges and opportunities in the food system in order to promote more equitable value distribution. • Raising income and social protection programs: This thematic area focused on the role of the Government through its programs and policies in raising income for all. Home Grown Solutions such as Girinka Programme and Ubudehe have made positive impacts in economic and social spheres among the vulnerable populations. For example, since its start in 2006, Girinka Programme has provided cows to over 300,000 families. It has contributed in doubling the milk production between 2010 and 2015, helping reduce malnutrition as well as improving household income. In addition, this thematic area looked at how smallholder farmers have increased their incomes through agriculture productivity increase and market access. Further modes of integrating smallholder farmers into productive and improved value chains for increased agriculture revenues will be explored. This thematic area looked further into what’s next - what more can be done in the food system to raise income among the vulnerable populations? The discussion focused on the roles of the Government and its programmes and policies relevant to the food system as well as discussing the role of the private sector and potential for public private partnerships in supporting the existing initiatives and creating new opportunities. • Redistributing/mitigating social and societal risks: This thematic area explored the risks of unemployment, increased health inequalities, financial instability, reduced education attainment and how we can redistribute/mitigate them. In the agriculture context, it would also be important to consider the weather/climate-related risks and how we mitigate the negative impacts on farmers. Small-scale farming is often considered more environmentally sustainable than industrial scale systems. While over 60% of the workforce is in agriculture and its sub-sectors, their informal form of employment creates a risk, making it difficult for many to access financial services. We need smarter investments in small-scale farming, through strategic multi-stakeholder partnerships. The discussion will focus on how smallholder farmers can mitigate social, societal and environmental risks and the role of the private sector.235241243246248249Promoting productive employment and decent work for all: The discussions on this topic revolved around brainstorming on ways to improve the employment conditions and structures that are more inclusive and productive by trying to identify the different barriers around creating employment for marginalized groups and how to reduce and/or eliminate those barriers. During the discussions, the definition of decent work was also looked at and ways of increasing available decent work opportunities in the food system. Participants highlighted the need to set up appropriate credit funds to address the limited access to finance for small scale entrepreneurs and marginalized groups, setting up minimum safety net measures to answer challenges around overexploitation and lack of safety net for marginalized groups at workplaces. Raising income and social protection programs: this topic focuses on the role of the government in raising income for all. The participants looked at the success of the different government social protection programs. It was noted that there was a lack of clear graduation pathway out of the social protection programs and the need to establish social protection graduation programs and guidelines including clear and quantifiable indicators and capacity building needs to make sure beneficiaries willingly participate in groups, hence increasing ownership. It was also recommended that these programs promote geographical coverage and enforcement of social registry to improve beneficiary targeting. The participants also insisted on the need to enhance coordination among the lead institutions to ensure smooth monitoring and evaluation. Redistributing/mitigating social and societal risks: the participants looked at how to improve the legal and societal structure to become more inclusive of marginalized groups. It was important to first identify the risks to smallholder farmers and smaller business operators to improve their livelihoods, barriers on improving financial instability, the impact of climate risks on smallholder farmers and how to mitigate all these risks. The participants highlighted the need to build around the notion of cooperatives and farmers’ organizations as key instruments to increase awareness on good agricultural extension and advisory services as well as establishing a commercial/agricultural bank since it was observed that financing agricultural activities is still a big hurdle. Banks need to also start putting in place specific lines of credit, financial literacy programs need to be initiated and insurance services need to be promoted.236241243246248249Topic 1. Promoting productive employment and decent work for all Existing challenge within food systems • Limited access to finance for small scale entrepreneurs and marginalized groups i.e. smallholder farmers, people with disabilities, … • Lack of safety net for marginalized group at workplace • Limited inclusion of marginalized groups into agribusiness opportunities • Limited skills and access to employment information • Limited agro-processing industries mostly in rural areas where most marginalized groups reside Game changing solutions • Setting up an appropriate credit funds to facilitate small holder farmers access to affordable financing (i.e.: tailor making loan conditions to crop seasonality, farmer (borrower) category and at a reduced interest rate) • Facilitate creation of agro-processing industries in rural areas spearheaded by private sector (linkage with farmers’ groups and cooperatives through contract farming frameworks, …) • Encourage participation in short cycle and remunerative value chains such as fruits, vegetables, …) Topic 2. Raising income and social protection programs Existing challenges: • Lack of clear graduation pathway out of the social protection programs • Limited coverage and lack of proper beneficiary targeting • Limited consultation and coordination among government institutions leading the social protection programs thus leading to limited ownership of beneficiaries • Limited linkage between marginalized groups and the private sector Game changing solutions • Establish social protection graduation programs and guidelines including clear/quantifiable indicators, • Promote geographical coverage, • Enforce social registry to improve beneficiary targeting, and • Enhance coordination among lead institutions Topic 3. Redistributing/mitigating social and societal risks Challenge: • Production issues: significant crop production loss, climate change risks, soil acidity, access to inputs • Lack of awareness of good agricultural extension and advisory practices • Financing: lack of collateral, weak financial literacy, lack of tailored products for small holder farmers Game changing solutions • Increase agriculture and livestock productivity through improved access to quality inputs, irrigation, mechanization, and sustainable water and soil management considering awareness on climate change and weather risk mitigation strategies • Establishment of a commercial/agricultural bank, banks to put in place specific lines of credit with a threshold amount form agricultural commercial activity, financial literacy programs, promotion of insurance services

2021-06-02 11:09:43204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/11452/203

954317361576523021595911761980685957485205

This dialogue aims to develop the Africa manifesto on forgotten foods. The manifesto will contribute to the global manifesto to be presented at the UN food systems summit. The subject of food a nutritional security in Africa is a major concern to all and sundry, as such the webinar attracted a lot of interest from the broad stakeholders group. Adequate publicity was created for the webinar; this facilitated good registration of participants. The discussion was conducted in basic language with minimal use of technical jargon. The opinion of all and sundry were taken into consideration in the development of the eventual manifesto document.To communicate the need for urgency, the dialogue was preceded by sufficient publicity and the circulation of an initial working paper to inform the public and the broad stakeholder group in Africa agriculture, food and nutrition. The complexity of the subject matter was considered during discussion. The issues of inclusivity were addressed by engaging from line actors from the different stakeholder groups as key speakers and discussant in the panel. The youth were adequately represented same as women. On the professional divide, a balance representation of farmers, researcher, extension as well as policy makers was ensured. The opinion of participants was taken in text messages in the chat box. All participants were also giving the opportunity to contribute to a poll to validate the key components of the manifesto document.The essence of the dialogue is to collate the stakeholder’s opinion in a balanced form. Hence, full representation and participation is required.

Yes

234238239240241242244245246247248249251The dialogue on forgotten foods as a respite to sustainable food and nutritional security was organized to with the intention to foster a paradigm change in the production and consumption pattern for in Africa. The subject natter have strong bearing to the five action track of the food systems summit. The Human Development Index is premised on the balanced attention to issues that drive individual as well as societal wellbeing. The issues of food and nutritional security are central in this goal and they require more inclusive perspectives than the conventional. The webinar takes a deeper perspective at the complete chain of issues and factors from production, through processing, marketing, distribution, quality control and safety, consumption patterns, food waste management, to recycling of nutrients and other elements of environmental sustainability. The action track 1 looks into ensuring access to safe and nutritious food; the documented evidence of the nutritious nature of the forgotten and underutilized foods warrants the crave to bring back this food into the food systems. Secondly that action track two on shifting to a sustainable consumption pattern, is consistent with the need for Africa to eat what it can produce to reduce the economic burden of food importation, Africa currently expend US$53 billion on food import per annual. Africa countries may also benefit economically from producing commodities that are well adapted to its natural resource base. This will reduce the cost of production owing to use of external inputs. The cultivation of well adapted food commodities will contribute to action track three on boosting the nature’s positive production at sufficient scale. Africa countries are struggling with huge yield gap on most of the food commodities, largely because of poor comparative advantage on climate, soils and other natural resources issues. It is speculated that with advancing the production and consumption of the indigenous commodities; the agrarian livelihood that engages more than 60% of the labor force in Africa will improve, this is consistent with action track four on advancing equitable livelihoods and value distribution. The indigenous commodities will foster resilience and reduce vulnerability, apparently, the commodity that sustains the populations are often the forgotten foods which are largely ignored in terms of research and development investment. It is crucial for Africa to revisit its neglected and underutilized species within the context of food system. The term forgotten food refers to crop and livestock commodities that have been neglected or underutilized as they have been displaced by increasingly uniform diets fueled by mass-produced processed ingredients from the ‘BIG FOUR’ of wheat, maize, rice and soybean. These four accounts for about two-thirds of the world’s food supply. The dialogue thus, identified the pathway to bring to the fore the subject of forgotten food and ensure its prominence in the continental food system. The need for awareness about the commodities and their nutritional advantages was identifies as the first action followed by the need to develop a new research and innovation system to ensure knowledge and technology development along the different commodities. It was opined that the research system will need to prioritize germplasm collection and conservation. It should also give attention to breeding and improvement. The issues of developing new food commodities that meets the need of the growing elites is important. The engagement of the policy makers for consistent action is vital. The stakeholders opined that active engagement of the private sector all along the development process is vital. Incentives should be created for agribusiness development around the various underutilized foods. Towing the pathways of sustainable intensification will be vital as the various endeavors develops and trigger the desired change. Efforts should be channeled to engage the growing youth population actively along the entire value chain to foster job creation and strong economic benefits from the upsurge in the production and use of the underutilized commodities.235238239240241242244246247248249251The dialogue came up with five main key finding/recommendations that need to be implemented to enhance the Africa food system. These five elements should form the pillars for the Africa manifesto. (1). Establish a dedicated and functional research system for holistic development of forgotten foods. (2). Incrementally build an appropriate innovation capacity (infrastructure, equipment and expertise) at local level to enable African research and education institutions develop solutions for increased productivity, resilience to shocks, value-added production and quality assurance for forgotten foods. (3). Establish partnerships and strategic alliances to foster engagement of youth and women for rapid integration of forgotten foods into the national food system and engagement for policy development. (4). Facilitate the engagement of private sector for investment into production, processing and marketing of forgotten foods and (5). Create a regional pool of financial resources to support research and coherent development efforts on forgotten foods. Such funds should be accessible by institutions and governments which have research topics aligned to regional priorities on forgotten foods. In other to mitigate the danger of food shortage and nutritional insecurity that was orchestrated by various constraints and lately aggravated by climate change, COVID-19, increased desertification, etc. There is the need to invest in life-saving crops that are resilient and in wide diversity from a wider range of crops and cropping systems. This will require a major modification in the agricultural research and innovation approaches towards identified underutilized species in each region of Africa. These logical modifications include: i. Adoption of new metrics and indicators to show the value of forgotten foods. ii. Concerted efforts in participatory plant breeding to improve the adaptation of forgotten foods and forgotten foods to social, economic and ecological conditions, and nutritional value. iii. Granting required respect of rights of farmers through allowing them to locally use, save, exchange and sell their Forgotten Foods. iv. Development of sustainable seed systems, facilitating conservation, access, availability, use and exchange of high-quality seeds of forgotten foods by farmers. v. Introduction of the development of forgotten foods into education programs. vi. More advocacy and evidence-based policy change. vii. Better access to markets, support to short supply chains and alternative retail structures. viii. Enhance capacity development of NARES etc. ix. Novel research development and networking (e.g. molecular genetics, nutritional profiling, agronomic interventions, digital technologies and applications). x. Enhance awareness raising to ensure that the values of Forgotten Foods are recognized by all in society, including researchers and technical agents as well as urban communities and consumers, for their nutritional, cultural and environmental benefits.236238239240241242244245248249251The discussion topics followed three interrelated sections of the webinar, one, the presentation of the technical paper on the manifesto, second the expert panel discussion and third, the broad stakeholders’ poll on key decision pathway. The technical presentation highlighted the five pillars of the Africa manifesto viz., the establishment of a dedicated research system forgotten foods. Building the systemic capacity for innovation, the establishment of partnerships and strategic alliances, engagement of the private sector and creation of a regional pool of financial resources. The panel discussion highlighted the the central issues to be considered in ensuring the contributions of underutilized species to food and nutritional security in Africa. It explicated what is required to mobilize farmers, women and the youth all along the process. It further prescribed the agricultural innovation systems approach to and the best research to development partnership model. The likely funding mechanism for the process were also discussed. The result of the participants poll indicated that the five pillars are important to giving prominence to the underutilized food in the food system. The issues of publicity, research system development and engagement of youth were voted to be most important priorities. The poll indicated that the research system should give prominence to Market research for the commodity, germplasm collection and conservation and agronomic integration of the underutilized commodities in the food system. Eight nine percent of the participants agree that innovations systems approach is the best research for development model to be used; the research coordination should follow the FARA /SROs/NARI model with smart implementation of the subsidiarity principle. The resource mobilization efforts could explore funding from technology tax, support from industry corporate social responsibility fund and support from philanthropic endowments. Eighty-seven percent of poll participants agreed that incentives in terms of funds, policies and other support should be made available for the private sector to drive the process.237238241245249251Divergence in opinion among stakeholders were observed in the dialogue. First, the label “Forgotten Foods” was largely criticized by majority as untruthful and not representing the state of affairs. Questions like who forgot the food? And forgotten in what dimension. It was opined that label like “Underutilized food commodities” will be appealing since the commodities in question are still used in certain climes, although not optimally. The neglect is in terms of investment into research for improvement and product development. The prospective funding mechanisms for the development of the underutised species also attracted wide divergence of stakeholder’s opinion. While a segment opted for funding from taxes from industries and corporate businesses. A handful are averse to technology tax of one percent from farmers income when the environment is suitable for their profitability. Apparently, the promotion of the underutilized species may not be very successful if the funding is expected from foreign donor and development partners. The commodities were neglected in terms of research and development largely because they were not in the priority of the key donors. A handful of past initiatives in this direction also failed for lack of funding and other resources. Subtle disagreement was observed on the issues of characterization of the forgotten food. A school of thoughts felt that since these commodities are still used in the rural settings, they should not fall into the category. Apparently, what constitute an underutilized commodity will form the first research action to be undertaking by the community of practice on underutilized food commodities.

2021-06-02 11:37:22204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/5123/41

181121012161531011183

The Dialogues were organized following the Food Summit Principles of Engagement, where a diverse set of stakeholders had the opportunity to engage in purposeful and respectful exchanges to discuss concrete actions for transforming food systems. Care was taken in the recruitment of participants to have a balance of food system actors present at the Dialogue. In his framing remarks, the Dialogue Curator reinforced the Principles of Engagement, and participants were able to gain of understanding of how the ideas generated throughout the Dialogue would feed into the UN Food Systems Summit. Following opening remark to frame the discussions, participants joined facilitated break-out discussions. Members of the Arrell Food Institute team attended the Curator and Convenor training, and many facilitators attended the training offered by the Summit Dialogues team as well.A large focus of the Dialogue was ensuring multi-stakeholder inclusivity, which was reflected in the diverse set of participants who attended the dialogue. Attracting over 50 participants, the delegates included farmers, researchers, politicians, policy makers, restaurateurs, and NGO representatives. As guided by the facilitators via discussion questions, participants discussed concrete action points and solutions for food system challenges, and the entire Dialogue followed Chatham House Rules so that participants would feel comfortable with sharing their opinions.The advice for other Dialogue Convenors would be to make sure to take advantage of all the resources offered by the Summit Dialogue team, especially the comprehensive Curator and Facilitator trainings. The reference manual offered online is also key resource for gaining understanding of the Summit Principles of Engagement.

Yes

234238239Ahead of the upcoming United Nations Food Systems Summit, Arrell Food Institute at the University of Guelph hosted three independent Food System Dialogues to bring together voices from across and beyond the Canadian Food System. The second dialogue explored the root causes of food insecurity. There were 5 discussion groups in this Dialogue, all of whom discussed one of these three topics: • Reducing poverty in Canada by 50% by 2030, with an equal reduction in food insecurity • The disproportionate impact of food insecurity on BIPOC populations, and meaningful progress towards BIPOC populations’ food sovereignty, reflecting cultural, ecological and economic interests • A Canadian universal school nutrition program that also promotes food literacy Framing speakers: Suzanne Barr Chef and Food Activist Paul Taylor, Executive Director, Food Share Toronto Evan Fraser, AFI Director235238239Canada should commit to reducing food insecurity in our country by 50% by 2030. To measure progress towards this target, we must create a national framework to measure food insecurity. Food justice is a poverty issue with links to health, education, and community building. Further, food insecurity finds it roots in structural racism and colonialism. Initiatives to address this include school nutrition programs, income floors and other forms of social protection that guarantee every Canadian has a basic standard of living. While funding for these programs can emerge from federal investments, the specifics of any program need to be tailored to community-specific solutions. This links to UNFSS Action Tracks 1 and 2. Major global trends linked with population growth, climate change, new consumer expectations and novel technologies suggest that the next 10 years may be incredibly disruptive for food systems everywhere. In Canada, we have much to celebrate: our producers are amongst the most environmentally conscious in the world, most Canadians enjoy safe, healthy, and affordable food year-round. Nevertheless, systemic problems of food insecurity and disruptions to the food system caused by the pandemic mean that we need to do better. Together, by working to empower communities to develop locally-relevant programs to address the root causes of food insecurity we can ensure Canada has the tools it needs to continue having one of the greatest food systems in the world. This will not only help support domestic producers and consumers as well as allowing those parts of our food system that depend on exporting to international markets thrive and expand over the next generation.236238239• Food insecurity is a poverty issue • Structural racism exists within food access • Different communities need different things • Food banks need support and are only helping those who are severely food insecure – not a long-term solution • Labour rights/workers rights must be considered, not just welfare or charity approach • Data, properly disaggregated, to benchmark and measure impact is crucial • School nutrition (education and food supply) is a vital part of this237238239While there were active discussions where divergent views were shared, each group was able to come to a general consensus at the end of their breakout.

2021-06-02 11:59:34205Stage 3https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/9829/91

999

Ireland strongly supports the call for a ‘people’s summit’ and a ‘solutions summit’. Ireland has prioritised the seven principles of engagement as the overarching framework for the planning and preparation of its four National Dialogues. This will ensure a people and solutions focus throughout the national level engagement in the Summit process. The National Dialogues coincide with the launch for public consultation of Ireland’s draft Agri-food Strategy to 2030. This new 10-year Strategy has been developed using a food systems approach, making Ireland one of the first countries in the world to implement this approach in national level agriculture and food planning. Ireland is committed to maximising the contribution of the four National Dialogues to the future sustainability of Ireland’s food system. The Dialogues will provide an opportunity for all food system actors and stakeholders, from farmers and fishers to consumers, to learn more about Ireland’s food system, build a shared understanding of the challenges and the opportunities we face, and enable us to work together to address them. The outcomes of the National Dialogues will be considered in finalising the draft 2030 Agri-food Strategy.The following are some examples of how Ireland’s National Dialogues reflect specific aspects of the seven principles of engagement: 1. Act with urgency Ireland has responded to the call for urgent action by launching a series of four National Dialogues. These coincide with a public consultation on the draft 2030 Agri-food Strategy. This coherence allows for a comprehensive consultation on the future of Ireland’s food system in the shortest possible time. 2. Commit to the Summit Ireland has identified the National Dialogues as a central part of its strategic engagement with the Summit. Ireland has demonstrated its commitment to the Summit by aligning the National Dialogues with the national agriculture and food planning process to develop its Agri-food Strategy to 2030. 3. Be respectful Through the involvement of a wide and diverse range of food systems actors and stakeholders in the National Dialogues, Ireland is ensuring that everyone has an equal opportunity to contribute to the discussion on the future sustainability of Ireland’s food system. We are all part of Ireland’s food system, and so we must respect and listen to all participants. 4. Recognise complexity To reflect the public consultation on its draft Agri-food Strategy to 2030, Ireland has created a series of National Dialogues to discuss the complex and interlinked social, environmental and economic challenges and opportunities we face. 5. Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity Ireland’s Food Systems Summit Steering Committee, an inter-departmental group tasked with coordinating Ireland’s involvement in the Summit, has proactively engaged multiple food systems stakeholder groups and provided regular briefings on Ireland’s participation in the Summit Action Tracks and the National Dialogues. In selecting participants to be involved in the various panel discussions, the Steering Committee actively sought experts from across the entire food system, from civil society, private and public sectors, primary producer organisations, research and academia, youth etc.Contd. Ireland created a dedicated webpage for the National Dialogues, and advertised the Dialogues widely through multiple media platforms and partner organisations. To facilitate the broadest possible engagement during the Dialogues, Ireland live-streamed each event on multiple platforms, including YouTube, Twitter and Facebook. Participation was further encouraged through questions and answer, which could be submitted before the event to a dedicated email address, or submitted during the event in real-time using Sli.do. 6. Complement the work of others The Steering Committee has actively consulted with, supported and participated in the many Independent Dialogues that have been held in Ireland since the start of the Summit’s Dialogue process. In addition, Ireland will incorporate the official feedback from all Independent Dialogues held in Ireland into its final synthesis report, to ensure the views and opinions of all food systems actors and stakeholders are recorded and reflected in the final outcomes of the National Dialogues. 7. Build trust By ensuring the widest possible engagement, and respectfully listening to and answering questions on the most important and challenging areas of our food system, Ireland will look to recognise and respond to the concerns raised during our discussions. We will focus on solutions that can play a role in the continued enhancement of the sustainability of our food system, to reassure all stakeholders of our shared commitment to future sustainability. We will look to build trust, and foster ever greater cooperation and collaboration among food systems stakeholder by reflecting the discussion accurately and honestly in the Official Feedback Forms and to use this feedback in finalising Ireland’s draft 2030 Agri-food Strategy.

No

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Ireland’s Fourth National Dialogue focused on ‘Aligning Domestic and Foreign Policy towards Sustainable Food Systems’. The opening remarks from Mr. Ruairí de Burca, Director General, Development Cooperation and Africa Division, in the Department of Foreign Affairs, outlined how food systems touch every aspect of human existence; and that our central focus on those living with hunger will require sustained action. Ireland was one of the first countries to support the call for a Food Systems Summit and Ireland will work to ensure there is strong engagement across the world especially from those who are often furthest away. The first key note address was delivered by Dr. Susanna Moorehead, Chair of the Development Assistance Committee at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Dr. Moorehead illustrated the challenges facing food systems globally in the lead up to the Summit and spoke about the important role of Ireland’s voice internationally as a champion in the fight against hunger, rooted in a historical experience of famine. Dr. Moorehead outlined the key positive findings of the DAC Peer Review of Ireland, specifically in areas focussing on LDCs, women’s empowerment and gender equality, and support for civil society organisations. The key area of improvement identified in the DAC Peer Review was policy coherence across domestic, development and foreign policy to achieve the SDGs. Dr. Moorehead highlighted the importance of policy coherence across generations, where choices made today will affect future generations. She complimented Ireland on the excellent progress made so far in implementing the Peer Review recommendations, and proposed key areas to consider going forward, including: investing in research and development in developing countries; sharing lessons of what works and what does not; sharing the experiences of tacking difficult policy issues through citizen assemblies; and exploring ways for Ireland to reach ‘net zero’. Dr. Jamie Morrison, Director at the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) gave the second keynote address. Dr. Morrison provided context to rising food insecurity globally, driven by the Covid-19 pandemic, with the challenge of achieving the target of eliminating hunger by 2030 now evident. He spoke to the challenge of eliminating hunger alongside the prevalence of overweight and obesity, with the underlying reality that 3 billion people cannot afford a healthy diet. This challenge around the affordability of food and the trade-offs that will be necessary will be pivotal in terms of identifying solutions through the National Dialogues process. Dr. Morrison also spoke to the unique integrated approach taken by Ireland in linking research, learning, education and innovation in agriculture. Many of the lessons learned by Ireland are inspirational for others and examples such as supporting learning exchanges with countries in Africa are incredibly impactful. The keynote addresses were followed by two panel discussions. The first panel focussed on ‘Ireland’s Role in Promoting Change Internationally’ and discussed the policy framework and emerging initiatives to leverage domestic capacities within Ireland’s international development policy, A Better World. Key aspects of the discussion were a focus on technology, science and research, mutual partnership-based approaches between Ireland and Africa, and bringing together domestic and foreign policy in a coherent way. The second panel focussed on ‘Policy to Practice: Understanding the Challenges and Opportunities’ where panellists provided a range of perspectives on the challenges and opportunities facing developing countries, with a particular focus on the impact of those living in poverty. The panel focused on the political dimensions of food as well as technical aspects in outlining some options for reaching those furthest behind, and the potential for Ireland to support African farmers in increasing sustainable productivity.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251- Partnership-based approaches, infused with mutual respect, open sharing, cooperation and sound planning is the clear way forward in the relationship between Ireland and Africa. - Policy choices to ensure coherence across domestic, foreign and development policies with an awareness of the trade-offs in maximising Ireland’s contribution to achieving the SDGs are necessary. - Ireland’s credibility and voice as a champion in the fight against hunger is a key contribution leading up to the Summit and beyond. - Key investments in research, science and technology will be necessary to support developing countries to develop their food systems. - Focusing on the impact of those living in poverty and the intersection of Conflict, Gender Inequality and Climate Change will be key. - There is a real need to achieve sustainable intensification in Africa given the projections around population growth and the need for Africa to feed its growing population. - A rights-based approach to food systems that emphasises the underlying ownership and access issues is as important as the focus on technical solutions. - Healthy communities with access to social, economic and agricultural services are the foundation of a thriving rural society.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251See attached for full report.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251See attached for full report.237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251- Instrumental changes versus transformational changes in terms of an approach to food systems. - The balance between private sector investment and development aid in achieving sustainable intensification. - The impact of conflict alongside climate as a driving factor in hunger where there was a divergence between panel members and audience votes. - Differentiation between food supply and access: an overconcentration of control and ownership even with an increase in supply versus the underlying rights around control and access for primary producers.

2021-06-02 12:22:55204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/12274/203

221

We organized the dialogue based on all the principles of engagement. We invited stakeholders from most food systems stakeholders in the South East Asia region and beyond, from farmers to academics and activists. We emphasized the importance of respect throughout all processes and chose prominent leaders to be the facilitators at each table.The dialogue reflected urgency, respect, diversity, trust, and other principles. This manifested in the feedback we received during and after the dialogue, which was very positive, and a wish to continue the dialogues and implement the solutions.We would advise following the principles of engagements and the FSD method. We have realized it helps create a very positive and productive process

Yes

234240244245246248249250251On the 15th of March 2021, the ASEAN-Climate Resilience Network (ASEAN-CRN), in partnership with the Global Alliance for Climate-Smart Agriculture (GACSA) and UN FAO Regional Asia Pacific Office (FAO RAP), convened the first series of a three-part Independent Summit Dialogue under the UN Food Systems Summit dialogue process. Meeting brought together over 150 participants to generate innovation ideas to support nature positive sustainable food systems. Building on the innovation ideas gathered, ASEAN-CRN in partnership with GACSA and FAO RAP, convened the second series of the three-part Independent Summit Dialogue series to give stakeholders from the ASEAN region an opportunity to deepen and connect the innovation ideas to strengthen food systems in the region. The second dialogue builds on key outcomes of the first dialogue in this series and takes a deep dive to connect the “innovation idea generation to support nature positive sustainable food systems.” The dialogue was aligned to Action Track 3: Boost nature-positive production. This dialogue sought to answer the following key questions: 1. What is needed to catalyze public and private investment in innovation systems for R4D in the region? 2. How can we better realign and coordinate national international research efforts to facilitate innovation and ultimate achievement of the SDGs? 3. Which innovations are ready for scale up and what is needed to take these to scale? 4. How can we strengthen dialogue platforms to promote innovation and idea sharing? To facilitate engagement guided by the values of sustainable development and informed by both science and experience, participants explored opportunities to scale up nature positive sustainable food systems under three main pillars: 1. Protect natural systems from new conversions for food production 2. Sustainably manage existing food production systems 3. Restore and rehabilitate degraded systems for sustainable food production and ecosystem services235240244245246248249250251This dialogue formed part two of a 3-part series dialogue aimed at connecting Innovation Ideas with Food Systems. The major highlights of the key issues emerging from the breakout sessions included: 1. What is needed to catalyze public and private investment in innovation systems for R4D in the region? • Smallholder famers, who still make up the vast majority of farmers in the region, are already actively practicing nature positive agriculture and growing interest in agroecological principles • There is growing interest by private sector in fostering sustainable production models • Each partner comes to agriculture with different expectations, so catalysing action will require different actors to work together in partnership • There is need to understand the gaps between available technologies and the capacity or willingness of farmers to adopt • Focus on partnership also reflects well the investment environment for climate-smart and nature positive agriculture • There are more public and private actors working to find innovative ways to deliver finance resources to farmers and provide incentives for other value chain actors • There is need to improve understanding of stakeholders needs and potential adopt and/or scale up climate-smart and nature-positive innovations for agriculture. 2. How can we better realign and coordinate national international research efforts to facilitate innovation and ultimate achievement of the SDGs? • There is need for new digital technologies that collect and organize information on farm conditions and options to improve productivity, address climate variability and address potential environmental impacts • There is need for more discussion and collaboration on how to help farmers and agri-businesses build and capture consumer markets for sustainable produce • There is a need to show the impacts of improved practices - needs to be improved evidence on how changes in farmer practice can drive improvements in sustainability. This is going to be a crucial for building sustainable markets for nature-positive agriculture. • There should be more attention on the knowledge and needs of farmers and consumers in developing climate-smart and nature positive agriculture products and markets. 3. Which innovations are ready for scale up and what is needed to take these to scale? • There are already be a number of technologies and approaches that we could taking off the shelf - agroecology for example. Such technologies to address interrelated climate and water management risks such as irrigation are perhaps not ground breaking, but will be essential • It was noted that in the past these have been public investment • Some specific on-farm technologies included: o New varieties and the use of underutilized species: farmer-led varietal selection o Agroforestry • There are a number of digital technologies and platforms that are being scaled, for an example how social media and digital platforms have been used in some countries to help link farmers to markets following the impact of COVID-19. In addition to how farmers are increasingly using platforms like YouTube on how to learn about new innovations Innovations are not necessarily something totally new. Innovation is equally about how local, old and new knowledge and technologies can be applied in new contexts or scaled-up. With this basis understanding there are a wide range of innovations ready for scale. Achieving scale may be about aligning interests - takes us back to partnership and respect.236240243244245246248249250251Protecting natural systems from new conversions for food production Key issues: • Public sector’s role on enabling policy environment is very crucial • Leveraging some public funds to scale up innovations such as the livelihood programs for communities in the forest as well as social forestry • Projects that can be funded for scaling up should be localized problems and the solutions are driven by the farmers themselves • One such innovation that also promotes biodiversity conservation is the nursery agri-business. Maybe the government can invest in the multiplication of plant varieties that are resistant to climate change and local varieties, particularly in seed development. • Thailand has been promoting as ASEAN seed hub so maybe this can be linked to projects of the government • Thailand is also promoting this plant-based food hub. This plant-based food hub can be a solution to recover from the pandemic. • The innovation on seaweed as feed to reduce methane gas emission can address concerns for food security as well as climate change. • Involve the academe as they have an important role in empowering and educating the farmers • Philippines has good innovative projects that can be scaled-up e.g., rice network • Private and public sector should work together/collaborate • The public sector referred here may include research organizations, the academe, and civil society organizations • Promote 5P’s and not just the 3P’s: private, public, producer, people partnership • Decision making tools are very important for policy recommendations: forecasting tools; yield forecasting, big data, drones and other tools important for policies or decision making • Role of youth in agriculture should be further explored • Jackfruit can be a replacement for meat. This is an innovation that Thailand would like to promote in ASEAN plant-based food hub. • There should be a way on how society can pay back the farmers as payment for ecosystem services.236240243244245246248249250251Sustainably manage existing food production systems. Key issues: • Investment in irrigation systems and water harvesting technologies, so as to help local farmers adapt to the situation of water scarcity or depletion due to long drought, which is brought about by climate change. • Building water storage and rainwater harvesting systems/capacity of farmers R&D is important to enhance the resiliency of the farmers on the ground • There is need for policies and strategies to manage land-uses and how to mitigate land conversion • There was also a sharing on strong state regulation and management • There is need to look at innovative financial systems • Transdisciplinary action is of utmost importance • There is a gap between technology, the situation and the farmers - innovations should be patent-free and easy access to the farmers • The interlinkages and connections that exist within the global food systems should be leveraged to ensure social protection and inclusivity and environmental and economic sustainability for the entire society. • Investment in state-of-the-art data science methodologies and collection systems. • We must make use of knowledge sharing platforms for inter-sectoral and multi-institutional approaches and inclusive multistakeholder engagement processes should be a priority • I also think that we need strong state regulations to ensure that conservation and management as much as production are taken into account Lessons from COVID has brought elements on technology investment, which is critical such as digital platforms and online platforms The farmer should be enabled and empowered • Farmer end-to-end supply value chain – engagement at policy level and mapping out the value chain We should always have the farmer in the middle and always focus the famer to the private sector and investment and R4D, government. • reduce the distance between Lab to field for the maximum benefit Invest on platforms that promote development of tech and sharing of knowledge and encourage lessons sharing – stimulate the role of development agencies to promote these initiatives236240243244245246248249250251Restoring and rehabilitating degraded systems for sustainable food production and ecosystem services. Key issues: • Adoption of digital technology is common now, but there is a strong need to ensure that digital technology links the value chains more closely. It helps farmers and consumers and production to consumers in terms of using resources and in allocating resources. • Aside from the classic digital technology and softwares, there are also suggestions of using virtual innovation platforms which is a bit more friendly in areas or in countries where communication infrastructure is not really that good like in the Philippines. • Adopting a type of circular economy and the example provided was the use of bio-waste turning it into fertilizer, etc. This is more sustainable in terms of being able to use resources that are already at hand. • In relation to rehabilitating degraded systems, there was a concern about being able to invest, particularly in social forestry. But at the same time, there are issues in going into this type of big projects, which really needs big investments. So, policy will be very important because public investments will be needed especially for long-term projects and for wide-ranging type of social forestry projects. • Solution to support smallholders who produce sustainable products. • There is need to scale up the amount of information so that we are able to inform everyone that there is a market, that there is a demand for sustainable products. • Farm to table concepts to support smallholders - some supermarkets and small shops are already moving towards sustainable products, but this is not yet enough to support the smallholder farmers at this time.237240Not many areas of divergence were brought up due to time constraints.

2021-06-02 12:27:19204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/5132/41

5422311157221021133712313

The Dialogues were organized following the Food Summit Principles of Engagement, where a diverse set of stakeholders had the opportunity to engage in purposeful and respectful exchanges to discuss concrete actions for transforming food systems. Care was taken in the recruitment of participants to have a balance of food system actors present at the Dialogue. In his framing remarks, the Dialogue Curator reinforced the Principles of Engagement, and participants were able to gain of understanding of how the ideas generated throughout the Dialogue would feed into the UN Food Systems Summit. Following opening remark to frame the discussions, participants joined facilitated break-out discussions. Members of the Arrell Food Institute team attended the Curator and Convenor training, and many facilitators attended the training offered by the Summit Dialogues team as well.A large focus of the Dialogue was ensuring multi-stakeholder inclusivity, which was reflected in the diverse set of participants who attended the dialogue. Attracting over 50 participants, the delegates included farmers, researchers, politicians, policy makers, restaurateurs, and NGO representatives. As guided by the facilitators via discussion questions, participants discussed concrete action points and solutions for food system challenges, and the entire Dialogue followed Chatham House Rules so that participants would feel comfortable with sharing their opinions.The advice for other Dialogue Convenors would be to make sure to take advantage of all the resources offered by the Summit Dialogue team, especially the comprehensive Curator and Facilitator trainings. The reference manual offered online is also key resource for gaining understanding of the Summit Principles of Engagement.

Yes

234240241244Ahead of the upcoming United Nations Food Systems Summit, Arrell Food Institute at the University of Guelph hosted three independent Food System Dialogues to bring together voices from across and beyond the Canadian Food System. The third dialogue explored strategies to put agriculture at the heart of a green economic recovery plan. There were 5 discussion groups in this Dialogue, all of whom discussed one of these three topics: - Canadian agri-food exports being recognized internationally as being the most sustainable on the planet - The agri-food sector as an engine of green prosperity - More Canadian youth are choosing agri-food as a career option and being trained in a way that meets the needs of this rapidly expanding industry Framing speakers: David McInnes, Canadian Agrifood Benchmarking Project Vimlendra Sharan, FAO Michelle Nutting, Nutrien Bill Gruel, Protein Industries Canada235240241244Clearly establish a national sustainability benchmarking process, linked to a robust data collection framework, that transparently shows how Canadian producers perform environmentally on a global stage. Preliminary data suggest that although progress is still needed, our producers are often among the most sustainable on the planet. Canada can embrace the idea that we are the world’s trusted producers of safe and sustainable food and put agriculture at the centre of a green economic recovery program. Recent announcements in the 2021 federal budget move us in this direction. A next step is to create a national sustainability benchmarking program that would give Canada economic advantage in export markets, contribute to our ability to meet our Paris climate commitments and to the UNFSS Action Tracks 3 and 4. Major global trends linked with population growth, climate change, new consumer expectations and novel technologies suggest that the next 10 years may be incredibly disruptive for food systems everywhere. In Canada, we have much to celebrate: our producers are amongst the most environmentally conscious in the world, most Canadians enjoy safe, healthy, and affordable food year-round. Nevertheless, systemic problems of food insecurity and disruptions to the food system caused by the pandemic mean that we need to do better. Together, by putting environmental sustainability at the centre of the Canadian agri-food sector's identity we can ensure Canada has the tools it needs to continue having one of the greatest food systems in the world. This will not only help support domestic producers and consumers as well as allowing those parts of our food system that depend on exporting to international markets thrive and expand over the next generation.236240241244• Improve ag education, at a young age especially • Address land costs/ownership barriers • Record protocols and be more transparent about sustainability efforts and outcomes within agriculture; sharing best practice but recognising that different situations need different approaches. • Explicitly include aquaculture and water-based food production • Consider further digitization of agricultural information beyond productivity – including carbon sequestration • Benchmarking and showcasing sustainability practices and outcomes in regional and national agricultural and food systems237240241244While there were active discussions where divergent views were shared, each group was able to come to a general consensus at the end of their breakout.

2021-06-02 13:49:23204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/7236/45192

2951770181116841128

While the dialogue was convened by the University of Leeds it was done in partnership with multiple universities that were part of the UK-China Critical Zone Programme. These included: University of Sheffield, Queens Belfast University, Nanjing University, Chinese Academy of Sciences and Research Center for Eco-environmental Sciences and Jiangsu Academy of Agricultural Sciences. The dialogue built on work previously done in the UK-China project. Each of the partner institutes put forward 10 names to be specifically invited to the event due to their knowledge and expertise in the topic area and supporting subject areas. The names put forward were from a range of stakeholder groups including fertiliser companies and government agencies. This multi-university and continent organising team ensured a wide range of people were invited to the dialogue from both academia as well as government and industry stakeholders. The range of views from a diverse group of people allowed for very open and productive discussions. The dialogue was set up to be a safe space for all views and the transparency on the next steps and potential to be involved in the collective research paper output helped build trust in the group.The UN Food Systems Summit Principles were incorporated throughout the Dialogue. Breakout groups ran under Chatham house rules and we asked that everyone was respectful of each other and sought and allowed time for everyone to put forward their opinion. While we recognised the complexity of the food system and how making changes was difficult and we welcomed differing views from soil scientists as well as water network and sanitation experts. We acknowledge that China has a number of years’ experience with applying organic fertilisers in the field and thus were a good case study to share their experience and data collected from this with the wider world. By building on existing partnerships and work conducted by participants, this brought added-value to the Dialogue. As well as enhancing existing relationships, the dialogue facilitated new connections and broadened future partnerships in this research area. We also envisaged that the language barrier (Mandarin – English) could potentially exclude some dialogue participants. Many academics in China have a good standard of English so can participate in events like this but stakeholders outside of academia may struggle. To ensure stakeholder inclusivity and trust was gained by all participants the event was convened in English but we made sure that strong multi-lingual participants were in each of breakout groups to allow for translation if needed. Facilitators were prepared to allow time for translation and were asked to check and summarise key points before moving on to the next topic. We pushed the “act with urgency” principle by making sure we discussed what needed to be done in the next 5 years to improve the system and make change promptly. Discussions were framed in the context of achieving the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals.

Yes

234239240244249Our drive to increase agricultural production, has been at the expense of long-term sustainability. Under a circular economy the production of agricultural commodities uses a minimal amount of external inputs and nutrient loops are closed to reduce discharges to the environment. By creating an economy in which waste is reused and pollution is mitigated, natural systems can recover. This approach supports the drive to produce food commodities in an environmentally sustainable manner, ensuring the needs of a growing population are met today without any long term negative impacts on food production in the future. The potential benefits for food security under a circular economy approach are therefore enormous. However, this can result in changes to greenhouse gases and nitrogen-related discharges, as well as inadvertently introducing into agricultural systems a suite of emerging contaminants, such as antimicrobial resistance determinants, pharmaceuticals, and plastics. As part of the UN Food Systems Summit 2021, this dialogue explored the concept of a circular economy, with a focus on Chinese agricultural systems. China has rapidly transformed their food production systems to meet a “Zero Increase Action Plan” for fertilizers and pesticides, and therefore provides an excellent case study to explore the concept of a circular economy in sustainable food systems further. China is predicted to reduce mineral N use between now and 2050 and organic fertilisers are assumed to help this transition. The aim was to: Share knowledge on the feasibility and risks of using organic fertiliser in agricultural production through adoption of a Circular Economy approach. Discussions in breakout groups focussed on the three key themes: 1. Current policy frameworks and future policy drivers  2. Technical adaptions in waste recovery and use of resources  3. Potential risks and mitigation measures  235240244249250Several key themes emerged from the Dialogue discussions, in the context of understanding existing knowledge of participants, the possibility of translating knowledge from on-going sustainable agricultural systems in China to UK relevant scenarios and exploration of future opportunities to address identified knowledge gaps. Participants could see the benefit and value of adopting a circular economy in agricultural systems as it offered a means of ensuring that current and future food demands are met. This then lead to a discussion considering the risk-benefit of a circular economy. This revealed we need more data to comprehensively understand the risks as well as the benefits but so far research demonstrates that these practices can introduce contaminants into our agricultural systems. This presents a risk to human and ecosystem health. Of particular concern were emerging contaminants. As their name suggests these contaminants are ‘emerging’ and our understanding is only in its infancy in terms of knowledge surrounding the associated fate and risks in agro-environments. We need to continue our work characterising these chemicals in the environment by developing analytical capabilities to ensure we can detect these chemicals at low, environmentally relevant concentrations. A key message was that we need to work with a transdisciplinary focus. This is a complex topic and understanding the risks and benefits of adopting a circular economy cannot be achieved by working solely on our areas of interest and in isolation. We need to adopt a nexus approach bringing together expertise in food, energy, sanitation, environment, human health, and policy. Collaborative thinking will require funding mechanisms to be put in place support future interdisciplinary research initiatives. A key theme emerged that we need to work with a solutions focus moving forward. We have a growing body of knowledge surrounding the risks of using sustainable agricultural systems and in particular the use of organic fertiliser but the benefits of adopting these practices are significant in terms of meeting global food demands. We therefore need to work on developing mitigation options to ensure that these practices are done in a safe and sustainable manner. Participants discussed mitigation options and put forward their own work investigating mitigation options such as additional wastewater treatment and use of biochar to adsorb some of the contaminants. This is an area where future work is needed and there is the potential to build collaborations through this Dialogue to explore this further. New policy developments are underway in the UK, largely driven by the new national strategy following the recent departure from the European Union. Focus areas are carbon reduction, driving down synthetic fertiliser use and pursuit of a circular economy. These mirror the efforts currently underway in China to ensure a zero increase in chemical fertiliser use. However, on a global scale, very little policy exists in terms of regulating the release of emerging contaminants in the environment even though sustainable agricultural practices, such as the application of organic fertilisers, provides a pathway by which these chemicals can enter the agro-environment. Environmental regulators therefore need to harness the latest scientific developments to establish research informed thresholds allowing for the safe use and application of organic fertilisers. This is going to require research outputs to be disseminated to regulators and presented in an accessible format. The Dialogue built on existing relationships and most importantly facilitated new connections with stakeholders and academics in the UK and China who have an interest in the use of sustainable agricultural practices to support future agricultural development. This will allow for combined expertise to address the crucial knowledge gaps identified in our discussions.236238240244249Current Policy Framework and Future Policy Drivers There are current policies and frameworks in place concerning a circular economy in agricultural systems, in both the UK and China, although further development is needed given the complex nature of this system. Policies are driven by the need to reduce our reliance on chemical based fertilisers, recover nutrients and the need to become carbon neutral and reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. Existing policy is also in place to protect the environment from the presence of contaminants although this policy area is largely fragmented. In China farmers are given 100-500Y per tonne to use organic water-derived fertilizer though these aren’t always evenly distributed. There are also penalties in place for poultry/pork farmers who do not recycle waste and pollute water ways. The Chinese government also produces technical documents which advise farmers on how to use wastewater-derived fertilizers, i.e. how to apply and maximize benefit whilst minimizing risk. UK legalisations set environmental quality standards for contaminants and restrictions on the usages of animal manures given local climate and weather conditions. The UK plans to mitigate flooding partly though soil management policies such as reducing compaction. In the UK the drive to recover nutrients is part of the net zero by 2050 targets. In response to Brexit, new environmental and agricultural bills are in the pipeline which are in line with carbon reduction commitments and in pursuit of circular economy. UK policies include driving down synthetic fertiliser use and to making fertiliser use more efficient, e.g. full life-cycle analysis for nutrient additions. Whether existing legislations are followed is hard to judge or even control. We need to ensure guidance and regulations are clearly communicated and incentivised to ensure maximum support from farmers and land managers. In the UK water treatment companies and government are considering carbon credits to encourage better resource recovery and facilitate farmers to use organic fertilizers and increase soil carbon. Issues have been identified concerning heavy metals (Pb and Cd) and the build-up of these within soils over repeated application of fertilizer. Organic fertilisers can also introduce emerging contaminants into the environment however legislation permitting safe levels of these chemicals in the environment is largely missing. It is therefore important to consider the impacts on human and ecosystem health in development of new policies to account for this. When considering policy implementation in the context of supporting a circular economy, we need to consider nexus solutions. We need to link sectors together (waste and agricultural sector along with food, water, energy, human health and soil) to address relevant systemic issues and identify the primary drivers, concerns and points of intervention. Organic fertilizer is fundamental for improved soil health within agriculture, it also serves as a suitable waste removal technique and therefore has potential to be widely adopted in modern day agriculture over that of synthetic fertiliser. However more attention is needed in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to better control nutrient and contaminant concentrations. Ultimately, organic wastes need to be used in a safe and sustainable manner. In order to both improve global food demand and preserve/improve environmental quality we need to enforce environmental legislation. However we suggest a reduced focus on standardised guidelines, and instead increase awareness and train people to be local problem solvers. Previous experience has shown it is often the implementation of the policies which fail. We need positive incentives and support needs to be in place with a focus on education to reduce barriers to social change in practices which incorporate circularity principles which are nexus-smart. Current legislations and policies only assess the toxicology of single contaminants, more work is required to make this realistic by looking at mixtures of both inorganic and organic contaminants and the risk of antibiotic resistant genes to society.236240244248Technical Adaptations in waste recovery and use of resource? There is much potential to apply technical adaptation in waste recovery. Ultimately, we need to embrace new, more sustainable approaches to farming, rather than trying to alter a broken system. However, this will require a change of approach, focusing on the role of wastewater treatment in terms of making the waste products safe in terms of human and environmental health whilst maximising nutrient recovery to realise the benefits of this reuse. A balance needs to be met here. Current processes which are optimised for effluent waste safety may include significant nutrient losses (e.g. denitrification). We need to investigate how the benefits of waste reuse can be met with only minimal risks. New technologies will need to be developed to complement existing waste infrastructure to ensure we can use these waste products as a resource. When considering waste reuse a significant barrier is the location and transportation of wastes suitable for fertilizer use. This may require significant infrastructure in place to support widespread use. Concerns were raised regarding the transportation and mixing of wastes as this may result in the loss of information regarding quality of the waste and contaminants present. An overarching governance is required in order to achieve this. It is important that research and industry work together in partnership with regulators to collaborate and address these issues. This needs to be supported by appropriate funding required for a sustainable future -is this funding coming from the consumer or cross sector funding primarily supported by waste and agriculture sectors?236238240244249250Potential risks and mitigation measures Both the UK and China have considerable expertise in understanding the risks associated with use of organic fertilisers in sustainable agricultural systems. There is a longstanding research programme in China on the risks associated with wastewater derived fertilizers, from field sites in Nanjing and Ningbo. Hazards include the introduction of inorganic contaminants (e.g. metals), organic chemicals, including emerging contaminants (e.g. pharmaceuticals and personal care products), as well the presence of pathogens (e.g. bacteria, viruses). Use of organic fertilisers can also introduce antimicrobial genes (ARGs) into the agricultural environment. ARGs can enter the food system via uptake into crops but can also damage soil structure by altering the soil microbial community and breaking the soil microaggregates held together by microbial activity. There is a need to both reduce the ARG load in fertilizer manufacturing, and to research how mitigation options can limit the risk of ARGs associated with wastewater derived fertilizers. We need to consider the legacy of existing contaminants and emerging contaminants as these both present a risk to ecosystem and human health e.g. heavy metals are often high in concentration and do not degrade whereas organic contaminants such as antibiotics are low in concentration but still remain bioactive and cause selection pressure on antibiotic resistance genes. Our research has shown that the build-up of Cd and Pb from waste products has resulted in impacts on soil health and the reduction in crop yield. It is important to consider these to achieve food goals as well as retain soil health. It is also critical to consider the effects of transformation products and not just the parent contaminants. Often these transformation products contain bioactive properties and still can influence soil health and organisms present within the environmental matrices. We also need to consider the influence of mixtures of contaminants. We know very little about how chemicals can interact, especially inorganic-organic chemical combinations. This is largely due to the difficulties in addressing mixture effects as well as detections of complex samples. We therefore need to advance our experimental and analytical capabilities to deal with this challenge. Mitigation measures exist which focus on reducing the concentration of contaminants in organic fertiliser through advanced treatment technologies such as anaerobic digestion, liquid-solid separation, and electrolysis. The extraction of struvite is the most advanced commercial operation globally. There is a need to address regional challenges when considering mitigation options as in some cases enhanced waste treatment is not an option when a country has limited sewage connectivity and sanitation options. In this case, bioremediation options may be more appropriate such as pollutant removal via wetlands or composting of faecal sludge from pit latrines. Research in China has evaluated the potential of biochar to become a suitable sustainable method in removing contaminants from environmental matrices. More research is needed to understand currently overlooked issues such as the potential for contaminants to desorb and release slowly into the environment, ecotoxicology (earthworms mortality rate with high biochar %) and the bioavailability of contaminants adsorbed to biochars. In order to overcome potential risks we need to integrate research and industry application and have integrated planning to move forwards. While we could focus on developing sustainable, low cost technology to remove contaminants from the waste stream; perhaps we should stop focusing on adding new processes and innovation to selectively capture an ever-increasing list of contaminants. Instead, focus should be on upstream causes of this contamination, ask why they are present in the waste stream and how we can rectify this. The focus should be placed on the risks of NOT making change (business as usual), rather than focusing solely on the risks of doing something ('least worst'). This allows a more balanced decision going forward.237238240244248249250There were a couple of areas of divergence. The first was around the focus on developing sustainable, low cost technology to remove contaminants from the waste stream. It was suggested that we should stop focusing on adding new processes and more innovation to selectively capture an ever-increasing list of contaminants and instead, focus should be on upstream causes of this contamination. We should be asking why they are present in the waste stream in the first place and how we can rectify this (e.g. source reduction, not mixing waste streams in the first place, rather than paying to fix them further down the line. e.g. producing new, less persistent pharmaceuticals). The second disagreement was over the suggestion of increasing the cost of synthetic fertiliser to make it less economical to overuse. Making fertiliser more expensive will encourage farmers to generate their own free Nitrogen (better crop rotations, cover cropping etc.) which will in itself have numerous benefits and be cheaper anyway for the same Nitrogen production. Counter points focused on instead making diagnostics cheaper to reduce indiscriminate and over-application. Lastly the presentation of the risks and benefits of the reuse of excreta needs to be presented in balance. There is already an overwhelming narrative about the health risks of reusing excreta for agriculture, and it’s the dominant argument used by those who oppose the idea. To encourage and improve the uptake of this very practice it needs to be framed in a more positive light rather than constantly discussing the health risks. There are known risks which need to be mitigated against, but industrial agriculture comes with its own health and environmental risks too. There was a feeling that the risks of excreta shouldn’t be blown out of proportion, and should be compared against the risk of continuing with “business as usual” and to degrade our soil resources and wider environment from industrial farming practices. It was suggested that we shouldn’t wait to be certain it is 100% safe before starting to think about implementing this in a safe and sustainable manner.

2021-06-02 13:52:40205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/14557/149

210127001380210000000601000020000000120010800000720

Total 21 people, including representatives of farmers unions, consumers organizations, world organizations, government officials, public institutions and specialists from academia participated.The dialogue mainly focused on issues surrounding ‘food for all’ such as establishing integrated food supporting system, improving public health and nutrition status, and reinforcing agrifood safety management.

Yes

234238249The dialogue mainly focused on issues surrounding ‘food for all’ such as establishing integrated food supporting system, improving public health and nutrition status, and reinforcing agrifood safety management.235238249In relation to 'integrated food supporting system’, the needs for expanding the budget of agrifood supporting program for vulnerables was suggested. Also, it was emphasized that there are needs to support more food to foreign countries which are in vulnerable situation. For effective program operation, it was emphasized to make collaboration between central government, local governments and NGOs, to train field experts specializing in food, and to link food supply and education. Regarding the ‘improving public health and nutrition status’, the importance of education to change public perception for food was emphasized. In order to change public perception, the expansion of education on importance of agriculture and rural areas. The expansion of curriculum to improve public awareness was also proposed. In addition, opinions on importance of balancing the issue of 'nutrition imbalance' with the issue of 'lack of nutrition' were presented along with the needs for customizing support for each target to solve this problem. In relation to 'reinforcing agrifood safety management’, the provision of food safety related information and expansion of food safety communication were suggested. Also, the importance of reinforcing safety measures for microbial hazards was discussed to prevent food poisoning accidents. In addition, the importance of inter-ministerial cooperation and governance for implementing various policies, and the necessity of promoting food policies that are incorporated into daily life even after the UN Food System Summit are presented.

2021-06-02 20:16:15204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/19154/203

1711157103014116

The dialogue was very structured and strongly moderated to share question and answer exchange equitably across participants. The tone of the chat box was extremely positive and supportive. Those who were able to use their cameras were encouraged to pose with a smile and wave for a group shot at the end of the dialogue.Be respectful: the dialogue encouraged respectful consideration of the overall nutrition of refugees; vocational and developmental needs of youth within refugee groups; the wellbeing of the natural environment in food production and consumption; and the wellbeing of host communities through the positive participation of refugees in food systems. Recognize complexity: the interconnectedness of food systems with all SDGs, was recognized explicitly by the Special Envoy as well as youth speakers. Embrace Multi-Stakeholder Inclusivity: speakers embraced their multiple perspectives and contexts by stating where they are from, and where they are now living.Some speakers had connectivity issues. The chat box was used to include their messages in the dialogue. This might be a challenge to anticipate and encourage speakers to have text ready to cut and paste if necessary, for a very prepared and pre-structured dialogue like this one.

NoNo, the standard dialogue format from the FSSD manual was not used. The alternative method used is described in the Concept Note and copied below: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bNz55irRHGZ80sRZisOKMIrRWhcMgOTP/view?usp=sharing Run of show Open segment – 10 min Welcome remarks and introduction of UNHCR speaker – Hala Opening remarks, and two questions to the SE about her journey from displacement to becoming the SE for FSS - UNHCR Director, NYO, Ruven Menikdiwela (TBC) Response to two questions - Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for the Food Systems Summit Agnes Kalibata Table tennis dialogue session – 20 questions total 15 minutes – 3 refugees per section Hala invites the Special Envoy to address two questions to the refugees – 30 seconds SE asks two questions – 2 minutes Hala passes the floor to refugee 1 – 10 seconds Refugee 1 responds to first question – 3 min Hala passes the floor to refugee 2 – 10 seconds Refugee 2 responds to second question – 3 min Hala invites refugee 3 to address a question to the SE – 30 seconds Refugee 3 asks the question – 1 min SE responds – 3 min 15 minutes – 3 refugees per section Hala invites the Special Envoy to address two questions to the refugees – 30 seconds SE asks two questions – 2 minutes Hala passes the floor to refugee 1 – 10 seconds Refugee 1 responds to first question – 3 min Hala passes the floor to refugee 2 – 10 seconds Refugee 2 responds to second question – 3 min Hala invites refugee 3 to address a question to the SE – 30 seconds Refugee 3 asks the question – 1 min SE responds – 3 min 15 minutes – 3 refugees per section Hala invites the Special Envoy to address two questions to the refugees – 30 seconds SE asks two questions – 2 minutes Hala passes the floor to refugee 1 – 10 seconds Refugee 1 responds to first question – 3 min Hala passes the floor to refugee 2 – 10 seconds Refugee 2 responds to second question – 3 min Hala invites refugee 3 to address a question to the SE – 30 seconds Refugee 3 asks the question – 1 min SE responds – 3 min Hala thanks participants and passes the floor to the SE for concluding remarks – 30 seconds Closing Statement SE closes the event – 2 minutes

234238241247251Refugee engagement in food systems, addressing challenges as well as opportunities to the problem of food security Refugees’ views, perspectives and ideas on how the Summit activities and country efforts to transform food systems can be leveraged for greater food security, better nutrition and more viable livelihoods for refugees.235238239240241242244247251Reliance on humanitarian assurance is short-term. To be resilient in the long-term, refugee youth need: training and access to information about nutrition, a means of food production, employment opportunities, and voice in decision-making about their future. Investment in new technologies to help overcome environmental and economic barriers to production and sustainability is also important. Refugees have self-determination and are a great force who can produce more than food for their communities. Refugee youth experience many issues that are related to food systems in their context. Too often, people who are living in poverty or areas of conflict end up in refugee situations. Refugees should not be living in subhuman conditions. They should have access to food, water; as basic minimums. Beyond that, it is a basic human right to have a home and a means of food production or a livelihood. We also recognize we are working against ecological challenges in a natural environment that requires more intentional management. Responding to the climate crisis provides an opportunity for young people to share what they are learning about environmental conservation.236238242247251TOPIC 1: Food and nutritional issues faced by refugees All refugees access, consume and buy food. Many also produce food. All are motivated to improve livelihoods and contribute to the economies of the countries in which they live. Yet many barriers exist. In many instances, refugees lack formal education about nutrition, resulting in malnutrition and improper dietary intake. There are also significant limits to refugees having limited access to food distribution and suitable land to produce their own food. Some questions that were raised included: How will food be distributed among people? Who has power over food distribution? For example, some people get half a chicken a month if they are lucky. Why is this inequality happening in food distribution? Unsafe situations such as conflict and violence are also barriers to accessing proper food. Some of the solutions proposed during the dialogue included: Provide formal training to refugees on nutrition. Ensure refugees have a voice in the food distribution process. (see more below) Facilitate safe access to land that is suitable for food production. Educate and incentivize the community to create gardens -(e.g. small gardens/home gardens to plant tomatoes, cabbages - increase food access) Ensure access to resources to buy the necessary food AND access to professional information on nutrition to accompany people in using their resources for a diet that really nourishes them.236238241242247249251TOPIC 2: Youth Inclusion & Voice Youth face the challenge of exclusion from decision-making platforms that influence food systems. How can we ensure an inclusive approach so displaced refugees are part of the food-security system? Solutions proposed during the dialogue included: Provide opportunities for people to voice their needs and challenges Include youth voice in platforms where decisions that affect engagement in food systems initiatives are made. Ensure those voices are translated into action (beyond tokenism). Build capacity through trainings on how to work on digital platforms, share their stories digitally Support young people to conduct exchange visits with different stakeholders for exposure and experiential learning and support peaceful coexistence with the host community.236241245251TOPIC 3: Economic opportunity & empowerment Refugees have self-determination, but there is a significant imbalance of power. Refugees deserve the ability to send their kids to school, feed their kids, and be able to do things everyone should be able to do. But this often doesn't happen because of the restrictions that prevent access to employment, land and capital. Refugees are also unlikely to have access to supports that allow them to cope with market fluctuations. Refugees should have access to productive resources. No refugee wants to stay where they are a refugee. Refugee camps are not meant to be permanent situations; they are there to help them survive. We should be able to provide for that environment so people can return to their countries. We need to engage young refugees productively in food systems as well as providing for the means of life in the time before they can return. Youth should have a role in primary food production, but youth can do more than that. They can do lots of jobs. They should have a living income. Food systems should be able to create many types of jobs. Solutions proposed during the dialogue include: Facilitate refugees’ access and asylum to banking services (eg bank loans) Open an insurance policy to refugee farmers Provide employment and business opportunities for refugee youths Engage governments to ensure refugees can access work permits so they can find job opportunities in their host countries. Make information accessible to youth about how they can access employment in food systems. Promote how farmers and markets can be open to take products to sell and distribute. Invest in human capital (e.g. training of workers on economic risk management and administration)236239240242244248251TOPIC 4: Technology & Sustainability Technology is an excellent tool to share information of any kind. If it is done in the right way, we can help many people with the information they need to access better nutrition. Social networks have become our main means of communication: Instagram, FB, Twitter, etc. Climate change, changing weather conditions, poor soils are all risky to food systems and prevent people from cultivating. Investing in innovation to develop ways to cope with adverse weather conditions is important. Engaging and promoting sustainable and innovative food production and efficient ways of distributing food across countries will help developing countries. Some of the solutions proposed in this area include: Invest in science, technology and innovation, for example: Machinery to enhance food production and preservation (e.g. microwave vacuum - dry up food and keep for longer in refugee setting) New food cultivation techniques (e.g. aquaponic/hydroponic - doesn’t need soil to cultivate) Greenhouses Drip irrigation to help food production in dry places. - keep food production in spite of arain scarcity. Fertilizers Share strategies that help refugees take advantage of what is available Duckweed - plant that grows in pond water - can be food for humans and animals - high in protein - can also purify water - help with water scarcity Creative ways of farming that uses minimal land: vertical farming, container farming (e.g. recycle plastic bottles, tires - create small gardens) One refugee share that she has a YouTube channel to share strategies to cook, gain livelihood and share among youth (e.g. how to make avocado oil from rotten avocados) Ensure that food is affordable because production is sufficient Design opportunities for youth to innovate - think and learn about creative ways to farm - move from thinking that farming is not cool - just for old people - make involvement fun.236238239240241242244246247249251Summary: At the end of the dialogue, there was an emphasis on the interconnectedness of issues. Many refugees were forced to leave their homes due to conflict and violence or environmental disasters. There was a call to the international community to address grassroots causes of conflict. When people are displaced due to violence, there is an increased population in the host country, which causes an economic crisis, leads to more unemployment and lack of education, starting the cycle of violence yet again.237No areas of divergence raised.

2021-06-02 21:43:54205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/22931/113

281234

The engagement was organized among national food safety stakeholders to highlight the importance of strengthening national food safety systems by embracing multi stakeholders inclusivity. Food safety is an important component of health security and sustainable development and it is related to everyone. Food safety is a shared responsibility of everyone involved with food, from governments, NGOs, food producers, retailers and consumers. All along the food chain, legislation and controls are implemented to minimize the risk of contamination to enable people to enjoy their right to food. In total, 28 members from various stakeholders attended the engagement which was intended to capture their interest and to show the relevance of food safety system across multiple agencies.Urgency. The engagement highlighted how ensuring food safety can help country to reach the goals set forth in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development as well as support the UN Food System Summit 2021. Commitment. Food safety, nutrition and food security are closely linked. Unsafe food creates a vicious cycle of disease and malnutrition, particularly affecting infants, young children, elderly and the sick. In addition to contributing to food and nutrition security, a safe food supply also supports national economies, trade and tourism, stimulating sustainable development.N/A

NoThe engagement was conducted in a hybrid meeting and turned out to be a good session. There were stakeholders attending in the same place and others joined the meeting by conference call or web conference. The session allowed stakeholders to provide input and solutions that is important to the organizer in ways that utilize their opinions and commitments.

234238246249The engagement major focus was to identify the best mechanism to align food safety and nutrition action strategies across multi agencies in ensuring food security.The goal of the engagement was that to integrate food safety and nutrition into broader food policies and programmes e.g. food security. Access to sufficient amounts of safe and nutritious food is the key to sustaining life and promoting good health.235238245247Main findings are : 1. Malaysia is adopting the Regional Framework for Action on Food Safety in the Western Pacific which provides guidance on strategic action and a stepwise approach to strengthen food safety systems. 2. For smart investments to improve food safety, synergies with other sectors and developments are critical. 3. Food safety is a shared responsibility where all stakeholders from various agencies play an important role. 4. 6 Strategies were proposed to guide the draft action plan for food safety and nutrition cluster to support the food security national policy.236238245247Strengthening the cross sectoral commitment will transform food safety systems and achieve the goal of ensuring access to safe and nutritious food for all. The engagement was successful to support governmental officials, food safety professionals, academia and the broader food systems stakeholders in understanding both the need to transform our food safety system and the available opportunities and solutions in scaling up food safety in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.237238245247There's no significant divergence of opinion within the stakeholders. All stakeholders agreed the importance of partnerships and cross-sectoral responsibilities to keep food safe for everyone.

2021-06-02 22:24:11205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/22945/113

694373216105

Urgency. The engagement was organized to introduce the food safety holistic framework for home-based food businesses in Malaysia in regards to solicit inputs and insights for the identified Food System Summit lever of change – women’s empowerment and finance. Complexity. The food supply chain is one of the most complex yet important logistics programs that we need for sustainability. As technology improves, and the need for safe, and fresh food increases, our ability to understand the unique hurdles and come up with effective solutions may be the only way of keeping our food supply fresh and safe to consume. In total, 694 participants from various stakeholders attended the engagement.As above.N/A

NoThe engagement was conducted in 2-ways communication and turned out to be a good session. The participants were already familiar with the topic as it was earlier been promoted and shared in social medias. Zoom became the go-to platform during the pandemic and also a good way to collect a variety of views. The engagement allowed people to provide input and assistance that is important to the policy-making body in ways that utilize their ideas and lived experiences.

234238251During the global pandemic COVID-19, the advantages of online food businesses were obvious, as it facilitated public access to prepared meals and help those food businesses to keep operating. Mostly, food is being prepared in home kitchens (home-based food) and offered on social media such as Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram etc. This unregulated home-based food through social media/online platform may put the public at risk because it is unlikely would meet the food safety standards. In order to ensure the home-based food businesses meet the same food safety requirements as other regulated food premises, this engagement was focused to give policy advice for further implementation and assist participants in identifying preferred areas of inputs or concerns that are important to the policy-making body in ways that utilize their ideas and lived experience. The goal of the engagement was that all people at all times have access to sufficient quantities of affordable and safe food products. Achieving the goal means increasing the availability of safe and nutritious food, making food more affordable and reducing inequities in access to food.235238251Main findings are : 1. There are demands from the public and consumers for relevant authorities to take proactive measures and regulate home-based food businesses to prevent untoward incidents. 2. Registration of the home-based food businesses is the least requirement to be made to ensure the traceability in the food supply chain if the food caused problems, for instance, food poisoning. 3. More engagement on education and awareness through on line platform to be carried out to outreach more parties due to pandemic Covid-19. 4. Most home-based food business operators are housewives and youth or those doing it to complement their household income on a full-time or part-time basis 5. Identified barriers are the limitation of hands-on information when the engagement was conducted through online platform.236238251A vision for safe home-based food businesses will transform food systems and achieve the goal of ensuring access to safe and nutritious food for all. The ambition of the 2021 UN Food Systems Summit is to launch a collective journey of transforming our food systems to give us the best possible chance of delivering on the SDG 2030.237238251There's a positive divergence of opinion within the participants. Home-based food businesses use their home to prepare and handle food for sale. Regardless the size of the business, they have to meet the same food safety requirements as others. And during the global pandemic Covid-19, many people especially the housewives (women) and youth started this home-based food business to earn money from home. There should be some consideration for modification of food safety guidelines and materials for them.

2021-06-03 05:57:45204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/22770/23

390422130034502800000002000000009280000061000200000020

COAST organized this national independent dialogue virtually on 30 May 2021. Before conducting the event, COAST went through a series of preparatory activities for bringing the utmost outputs from all roles and sections that aligned with the Summit’s objectives and principles. These were: Because of the risk of COVID-19 and other challenges, COAST organized this event online by using its own paid zoom channel. At prior, COAST sent an invitation to all through email with a Zoom link and informed them accordingly. COAST had been in contact with the responsible government officials and other representatives (UN agencies and international non-profit organization) to ensure their participation in the event. COAST translated all the PPTs into Bangla to engage all the participants meaningfully. Besides the event was run using the Bangla language. The moderator translated the summary of the discussion issues to our international guests from time to time. To make the event most meaningful, COAST conducted a preparatory meeting with all the farmers' organizations' representatives. The discussion points of the event were: intro and objective of FSS, focusing issues during the breakout sessions, and dividation into groups. A preparatory meeting with the FGD facilitators was also organized to bring out the major game-changing solutions from diverse stakeholders.First of all, the dialogue was organized on 30 May 2021 as a contribution to the Food Systems Summit 2021 and to the elaboration of pathways to food systems transformation both for contributing to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and also to create a driveway as the farmer's voice of our country to be heard at the national to the global level. COAST as a convener of the Dialogue has a strong belief that this platform helped to empower the stakeholders who participated in the national independent dialogue. As all the participants shared their identified problems regarding their local context and the best possible solutions to get out of these. It will also help them for forward-looking, fostering new connections, enabling the disclosure of ways to move forward collectively and innovatively, and supporting the scope of opinions. Now to make the event most purposeful allied with the objectives of the summit, COAST invited 20 small-scale farmers organizations representatives from different regions of our country, and as stated above they shared their most important issues/obstacles, best possible solutions, policy formulation and policy reformation to reach at the target of safe and sustainable food system for our country. Apart COAST organized a preparatory meeting with the participants at the previous day of the final event as they could understand and follow the ground rules of during the dialogue. It was decided that they will listen to each other and be open to the divergent points of view. Point to be noted here that COAST divided the whole event into three parts: opening session, three breakout rooms for FGD and plenary session. All the major findings from FGD including policy interventions were presented at the plenary session. All stakeholders heard these and placed their comments there respectfully. COAST believes that the results that brought out from the event are in line with the Summit’s principles and objectives, and will be helpful to ensure a safe, sustainable food system and to upright the rights of the farmers for their development.No. Just one suggestion that I think the reference manual for food systems summit is a very good and precise guideline to get better understanding about all the contents of this summit as well as the principles of engagement.

Yes

234238239240241242244246248249250251The National Independent Dialogue on Food Systems Summit has given a powerful opportunity for the participants to bring together a variety of stakeholders, including voices that are hardly ever heard, and provide a significant opportunity to engage directly in proposing pathways towards sustainable food systems, exploring new ways of working together and encouraging collaborative action. In addition from it has also created a chance for the participants to share their issues/ideas and thoughts which are both critical for reducing the vulnerability and enhance the resilience of food systems from local to the national level in a country and the Summit’s success. COAST organized this event to bring out and implement actions that can change the ways in which food systems operate in Bangladesh. The major focus was to identify the priority issues from the solution clusters of the action tracks which are suited for our country and to share any additional recommendation for the betterment of overall food system.235238239240241242244246248249250251Major findings: • Establishment of a strong sustainable farmers’ platform in Bangladesh. • Allocation of subsidized inputs such as chemical fertilizers, irrigated water, tractor, high-producing & climate-adaptive varieties of seeds, pesticides, etc. • Strengthening Agricultural cooperatives. • It is seen that there is a gap between the agricultural officer and farmers’ community so in maximum time farmers are unable to get government facility from them. • Information gaps about healthy diets and sustainably produced food. • Mainstreaming the climate impact- invest needed for new agricultural seeds that would be stress tolerance. • The price of crops is fixed by the middle right holder and farmers have no power to fix it and farmers are hostage by this middle exploiting class who also make the artificial crisis in the market. • Seed bank establishment and controlled by the government and other responsible directly. • Raising crop production by vegetable garden at the homestead areas and the rooftop through conducting awareness campaigns using social media and small financial support. • Establishment of cold storage and production factory in those areas where production rate is high. It will be helpful to save perishable food items and to give more profit to the farmers. • Support to the farmers for ensuring direct market linkage to get the fair price of his/her produced food items. • Promote climate adaptive technologies and techniques for sustainable food production • Focus efforts on making value chains inclusive through the generation of decent employment and improving resilience through social protection. • Emphasis on Agricultural diversification and rural employment generation and enhanced agro-based economic activities. • More research or scientific evidence is needed to better illustrate challenges and probable solutions.236238239240241242244246248249250251As said before, we divided all the stakeholders into three groups for FGD and fixed action tracks as a discussion topic for them. The group one discussed one action track- 01; group two discussed on action track- 02 & 03 and group three discussed on action track- 04 & 05. Now the outcomes of the breakout discussions are given below: Group One: • Establishment of a strong sustainable farmers’ platform in Bangladesh. • Allocation of subsidized inputs such as chemical fertilizers, irrigated water, tractor, high-producing & climate-adaptive varieties of seeds, pesticides, etc. • Strengthening Agricultural cooperatives. • Seed bank establishment and controlled by the government and other responsible directly. • Raising crop production by vegetable garden at the homestead areas and the rooftop through conducting awareness campaigns using social media and small financial support. • Establishment of cold storage and production factory in those areas where production rate is high. It will be helpful to save perishable food items and to give more profit to the farmers. • Support to the farmers for ensuring direct market linkage to get the fair price of his/her produced food items. • Policy reformation focusing to encourage and involve women and youth in agriculture. Group Two: • From the government effective policy is required for market management and ensuring fair price of food crops of the farmer. Government will take responsibility to buy, sell and preserve food crops. • Ownership of seed is not in the hand of farmers. The seed bank is the solution of this problem. • The price of crops is fixed by the middle right holder and farmers have no power to fix it and farmers are hostage by this middle exploiting class who also make the artificial crisis in the market. • In the farmers’ community, there must have buying and selling center to ensure the legal price of food crops. • In the farmers' community, there is not sufficient opportunity to preserve surplus crops. To solve this problem in the community level cold storage required. The cooperative farmers' group can take initiative to solve this problem. Group Three: • Focus on the groups whose livelihoods (women, youth, indigenous peoples, the disabled, seasonal laborer’s, etc.) are most limited by current food systems practices, and the discriminatory practices and norms that limit equitable livelihoods. • Inclusion of pro-poor nature-based solutions and climate change and environment policies to improve the capacity of the poor to manage risks. • Research is needed in local level connecting the local people and farmers and those who are involved in the food system. • Mainstreaming Climate change, adaptation, resilience in national, sectoral and spatial development & humanitarian development program. • Develop Effective Country Investment Plan (CIP) for Agriculture, Food Security and Nutrition.237238239240241242244246248249250251The areas of divergence that emerged during the dialogue could be easily identified from the section outcomes from each discussion topic.

2021-06-03 08:20:09205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/8878/153

110

We kept the Principles at the heart of every stage of the planning process. When choosing thematic areas to be discusses, we identified topics that we felt were the most urgent or that are not already being addressed through existing policy to the extent needed, therefore working to complement the work of others. When deciding on who to invite, we ensured that participants would be representative of Rwanda’s food system through the Principle of inclusivity. Being respectful and building trust was central to how we coordinated the event and how we facilitated the Dialogue itself.• Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity and recognize complexity: By inviting a representative from Yara to speak on climate smart agriculture, we embraced the complexity of modern agriculture by giving a fertilizer company a platform to speak about its role in creating sustainable food systems. • Complement the work of others: By making the existing National Agriculture Insurance Scheme one of our thematic areas, we sought to identify the gaps in its design and implementation and therefore contribute toward strengthening what is already there.The food systems approach is a way for us to re-conceptualize everything that is being done from a systems perspective and consequently find the gaps we need to fill. The Principles ensure that we keep our thinking at a systems level in the most effective manner possible.

Yes

234242243244248249The focus of the stage 1 dialogue, “Toward Resilient and Inclusive Food Systems in Rwanda: Economic, Social and Environmental Resilience” was Action Track 5. Participants therefore discussed how to build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress, and ensure continued functionality of sustainable food systems in the Rwanda context. The dialogue aimed to facilitate the broad engagement of stakeholders including government, academia, the private sector and development partners. The dialogue divided the action track into three central approaches: • Economic Resilience: Being equitable and inclusive;  • Social Resilience: Producing broad-based benefits for all people for them to be able to recover effectively and efficiently from shocks; and  • Environmental Resilience: Generating positive and regenerative impacts on the natural environment.  The dialogue opened with brief presentations given by invited speakers to help set the scene for participants. The speakers were followed by four breakout sessions where participants were asked to identify gaps and opportunities in Rwanda’s food system on one of the following thematic areas: Regional food trade: The Rwandan food system is strengthened by integration into East African trade that connects smallholder farms to reliable markets and distributes profits fairly across all actors along the value chain. Risk mitigation and insurance, focusing on Rwanda’s National Agriculture Insurance Scheme (NAIS): Crop insurance is a risk management tool which provides dependable support to smallholder farmers facing shocks across Rwanda. Insurance coverage during adverse years prevents households from resorting to negative coping that erodes the natural resource base and degrades ecosystems, while supporting access to credit and financial services at more favorable terms and encouraging an entrepreneurial mindset and innovation. Access to insurance is an effective mechanism to de-risk food systems. Early warning systems (EWS): Smallholder farmers and other stakeholders along the food systems value chain receive timely warnings on shocks using better data and mobile technology. Rwanda has been expanding its early warning system to help people prepare for extreme weather events so as to reduce vulnerability and economic losses from these. Climate smart agriculture (CSA): Pervasive use of conservation agriculture, climate resistant crops and other forms of climate smart agriculture (CSA) boost Rwanda’s food systems resilience to natural disasters and environmental stresses caused by climate change. During discussions, each group considered policy, innovation, finance and inclusivity as cross-cutting issues. Objectives 1. To contribute to national efforts for sustainable food systems by 2030, providing participating stakeholders with a deeper understanding of their food systems and how they can be transformed. 2. To create an opportunity for engagement and interconnection among a broad set of stakeholders, enhancing connectivity and relations among national food systems actors. 3. During the Dialogues, participants that represent different stakeholder groups will work out how they intend to contribute to the sustainability of national food systems and, ideally, make commitments for which they are accountable. 4. To engage participants on future endeavors for sustainable food systems, in line with their intentions and commitments, beyond the Summit.235242243244248249Topic 1. Economic Resilience (Regional food trade) Existing Challenge within Food Systems • Lack of awareness of regional compliance standards among stakeholders so that Rwandan produce can become marketable in the regional trade system • Lacking infrastructure keeps transport prices high • Significant gaps in trade standards between East African countries continue to create challenges for trade Game changing solutions Increase the participation of smallholder farmers in regional food markets through a private sector friendly business environment • Harmonize border inspect procedures through regional blocs (namely EAC) • Target infrastructure investments based on market demand to reduce logistic costs and expand participation by smallholders • Capacity building for MSMEs on trade standards Topic 2. Economic & Social resilience (Risk mitigation and insurance) Challenge: • Low awareness of insurance products among smallholder farmers, which affects trust and uptake • Underdeveloped data collection, M&E and Knowledge systems on all aspects related to agricultural insurance, including historical data on yields, losses, weather-related data points, etc… • Despite the government subsidy, perception is that insurance premiums remain too high Game changing solutions Increase coverage of livestock and crop insurance • Continue increasing awareness through national media campaigns • Leverage innovative technologies (including satellite/drone technology) to enhance the data systems linked to insurance, as well as customer feedback mechanisms to ensure use of lessons • Continue initiatives aimed at reducing premium costs through de-risking the sector Topic 3a. Environmental & Social resilience (Early Warning Systems) Challenges: • Underdeveloped data management systems linked to EWS technologies • Limited access to information on EWS, particularly among vulnerable and isolated communities in an accessible and low-cost manner. Game changing solutions Expand access to Early Warning System (EWS) data for enhanced decision making among smallholder farmers • Pilot EWS initiatives in vulnerable districts with a view to stress test and fine tune data sharing protocols • Design human-centered, user-friendly information delivery systems using accessible technology for the end users of information (mainly smallholder farmers) Topic 3b. Environmental resilience (Climate Smart Agriculture) Challenges: • Lack of a multi-sectoral coordination approach to promote CSA practices. • Limited application of CSA practices and technologies that are contextualized for Rwandan agriculture Game changing solutions Increase area under climate smart agriculture (CSA) practices through enhanced coordination and smart incentives for green production • Ensure coordination among stakeholders through strengthened national systems, including public-private dialogues (PPD), value chain platforms (VCPs) among others • Incentivize Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA) practices (smart subsidies, tax breaks), as well as create stronger partnerships with institutes (e.g. RICA) promoting such practices236242244248249Topic 1. Economic Resilience (Regional food trade) Existing Challenge within Food Systems • Lack of awareness of regional compliance standards among stakeholders so that Rwandan produce can become marketable in the regional trade system • Lacking infrastructure keeps transport prices high • Significant gaps in trade standards between East African countries continue to create challenges for trade Game changing solutions Increase the participation of smallholder farmers in regional food markets through a private sector friendly business environment • Harmonize border inspect procedures through regional blocs (namely EAC) • Target infrastructure investments based on market demand to reduce logistic costs and expand participation by smallholders • Capacity building for MSMEs on trade standards Topic 2. Economic & Social resilience (Risk mitigation and insurance) Challenge: • Low awareness of insurance products among smallholder farmers, which affects trust and uptake • Underdeveloped data collection, M&E and Knowledge systems on all aspects related to agricultural insurance, including historical data on yields, losses, weather-related data points, etc… • Despite the government subsidy, perception is that insurance premiums remain too high Game changing solutions Increase coverage of livestock and crop insurance • Continue increasing awareness through national media campaigns • Leverage innovative technologies (including satellite/drone technology) to enhance the data systems linked to insurance, as well as customer feedback mechanisms to ensure use of lessons • Continue initiatives aimed at reducing premium costs through de-risking the sector Topic 3a. Environmental & Social resilience (Early Warning Systems) Challenges: • Underdeveloped data management systems linked to EWS technologies • Limited access to information on EWS, particularly among vulnerable and isolated communities in an accessible and low-cost manner. Game changing solutions Expand access to Early Warning System (EWS) data for enhanced decision making among smallholder farmers • Pilot EWS initiatives in vulnerable districts with a view to stress test and fine tune data sharing protocols • Design human-centered, user-friendly information delivery systems using accessible technology for the end users of information (mainly smallholder farmers) Topic 3b. Environmental resilience (Climate Smart Agriculture) Challenges: • Lack of a multi-sectoral coordination approach to promote CSA practices. • Limited application of CSA practices and technologies that are contextualized for Rwandan agriculture Game changing solutions Increase area under climate smart agriculture (CSA) practices through enhanced coordination and smart incentives for green production • Ensure coordination among stakeholders through strengthened national systems, including public-private dialogues (PPD), value chain platforms (VCPs) among others • Incentivize Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA) practices (smart subsidies, tax breaks), as well as create stronger partnerships with institutes (e.g. RICA) promoting such practices2372422432442482491. Regional food trade: There was divergence between the relative importance of harmonizing trade standards across East Africa and raising the awareness of smallholder farmers to regional standards. On the one hand, there is a gap between East African countries related to trade with Kenya having a higher level of standards than its neighbors for example. One proposal is therefore to bring in expertise on issues related to policies, food safety regulations, and post-harvest handling to harmonize policy. Others noted that while differences in standards exist, there are legal and economic frameworks in place, notable the EAC trade forum to address trade disputes in the interests of vulnerable stakeholders. Following this, raising awareness of differing standards is key so that farmers are able to export to other markets competitively. 2. Risk mitigation and insurance: There was divergence on the percentage of insurance premiums that should be paid for by government. It was mentioned that in some parts of India, 80-90% was required to attract interest compared with 40% in Rwanda. Others noted that this was not feasible in Rwanda and that the emphasis should instead be on integrated crop insurance into existing social protection programmes. There were also difference in the role that insurance companies should play with some arguing that they were not doing enough while others mentioned that the larger problem lies with the lack of trust farmers have in the insurance providers. This fed into the larger theme of public-private partnerships and the balance that must be found between business interests and social protection. 3. Early warning systems (EWS): The use of technology to disseminate EWS information was mentioned as a possible game-changing solution to tackle low awareness but there was divergence on how to make it user-friendly and accessible. The success of an FAO smartphone application that provided information about the weather, hazards, nutrition and animal resources to help farmers deal with climate change was used as a case study. However, the issue of not all farmers, particularly the most vulnerable, not having access to a smartphone was raised. With 80% mobile phone coverage in Rwanda, simple SMS messages could be an alternative although the effectiveness of transmitting complex information in such a limiting format would remain a challenge. 4. Climate smart agriculture (CSA): There was some divergence over the promotion of biodiversity and the use of more nutritious and drought-resistant crop species

2021-06-02 10:06:552021-06-02 10:14:32

2021-06-03 11:21:37204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/17372/203

1936716557

- This dialogue was organised collaboratively - ATNI, GAIN, WBA and Food Foundation were the four leading organisations. We decided to work together as we all had a footprint in different areas of the world and ensuring that we brought together a diverse group of people from different countries and regions was an important factor if the dialogue is to be successful. - We also involved other stakeholders in the planning process, asking them to review the purpose and then outline for the dialogue to ensure that it would be appropriate and relevant for the LMICs we were hoping to include in the dialogue. - We knew that the subject matter was complex and it was important to present a range of case studies in order to help illustrate types of benchmarking initiatives that had been developed by different organisations.- A long and inclusive welcome helped to set the tone for the dialogue by making people feel relaxed whilst at the same time giving people a flavour of the diversity of stakeholders and geographies we had in the 'room'. - In each breakout room we ensured there was a good mix of people from different stakeholders groups and geographical locations so that each discussion was inclusive and diverse - After the plenary we invited Alison Cairns to speak about the UNFSS so that the participants can see how what was discussed in the dialogue will feed into the UNFSS process and build on the existing processes and initiatives that have already been set up by the UNFSS secretariat and wider teams.

Yes

234239243249This dialogue was exploring the feasibility of developing a shared national accountability and reporting framework for the food industry. It seeked to answer the question: how can emerging initiatives that benchmark the food industry and engage with stakeholders such as government and investors be applied to countries outside of the traditional benchmarking regions of Europe and the USA?235239243249The dialogue identified a set of common technical challenges around both national and global benchmarking initiatives. Challenges include how we develop standardised metrics and the importance of using metrics that drive change (for instance whether we build on what is already being measured or thinking about new metrics). How data is sourced (for instance independent versus company data) is another common challenge. Another common challenge was around engagement, who we should be engaging and how to do this in a way that drives change. Key stakeholders to engage are businesses, investors and SMEs. The media are another important stakeholder group. How we involve each of these stakeholder groups and engage with them will produce different outcomes. The difference between ‘naming and shaming’ and league tables was one example provided. The dialogue also identified the need and demand to create a global network to further explore the feasibility and practicality of developing a shared approach for monitoring and reporting food businesses nationally and globally. Global companies behave differently in different countries. Using the same benchmarking approaches in different countries would help to compare companies’ performance in different countries and, if there are discrepancies, use this as a way of driving change and subsequently levelling the playing fields between countries in developed and developing countries. Agreement that there may be a value in developing a set of standard tools that could be applied in different country settings. Individuals came forward in the dialogue to say they would be interested in being part of these discussions going forward.236239243246249Breakout room 1: Benchmarks are useful structures to know what issues & questions we should be asking companies, even in countries like the UK where this is comparatively a lot of info from the countries themselves. There is a rise of interest in corporate responsibility, so investors need to understand the different trends. There are solid financial gains in health & nutrition for companies and benchmarks can ignite change especially where legislation is lacking. Firstly, when we create indicators how do we best define sustainability? What is the right balance of indictors in each context and how are they relevant for consumers, investors, regulators? How do we build indictors in a multistakeholder context? How do we know an index will be useful and create positive change? For instance, with economic sustainability we can look at leading or lagging indicators e.g. how many jobs are created – but is this the right indicator? Or is investment in sustainable finance better? How do we create change, how does it speak to our context and how is it globally relevant? Legislation doesn’t support the translation of the policy into practice. The concern in Bangladesh is the policy translation by governments so governments need support from other agencies to do this. In Egypt the market is full of snack for children that are high in fat, sugar, salt and obesity rates are soaring. The legislative framework and standards and norms for food safety is there, but the infrastructure for application is weak. This is shared in all low- and middle-income countries. I would like very much for Egypt and other African countries to make a survey of acceptability of a benchmarking system to see who would join it. We have working relations with some leading industry players and then the others will follow. The SUN initiative is integral entry point for benchmarking & improving nutrition in African countries. It is an established relationship of stakeholders committed to health and wellbeing of children, a captive committed community already. If you start with the food producers in Egypt say through the Chamber of Commerce or Food industry associations, you will find a lot of resistance. How to create greater harmonization? SDG indicators aren’t perfect – no animal welfare for instance – then you need to weigh up what the indicator is (in terms of data and whether it’s comparable). We don’t want to capture the status quo or mislead. It can be difficult to create indicators when we have to rely on industry best practice for guidance as there is no international standards, e.g. warning labels on foods in Mexico. Some countries oppose regulations or lobby against it but so far there has been some positive responses. Walmart you filter your shopping cart to take out those with warning labels. ATNI is using government endorsed nutrition portfolio ratings and change analysis in the scoring guidelines for individual companies rather than focusing on the league tables as the end result. Breakout room 2: Most of the participants in breakout room 2 represented global benchmarking initiatives. They spent their time synthesising the learning from global initiatives that could be translates into national frameworks: We need to create stronger links between national govt and benchmarks; We need to reach different stakeholders and there needs to be more sharing of successes and failures between different benchmarking initiatives; We need to create more demand for independent, verifiable data. Greater demand for independent data that isn’t just provided by companies who are self-reporting; We recommend a global benchmarking framework that could be adapted in different national contexts; Breakout room 3: Having a benchmark alone is not enough, it’s about driving change and we need a consistent way of measuring. General agreement that a broad framework would be helpful. Within LMICs there is a lack of understanding of what is happening at country level and a need to start benchmarking. We need a globally harmonised framework that records the global impact of farming mechanisms. These need to be measuring based on outcome

2021-06-03 11:27:14204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/18372/203

747442321477473517184844

The dialogue was organised in full respect of all the principles on which the Summit is based. The aim was to create an occasion that would give visibility and a voice to those who normally stand on the sidelines of the debate. In particular, this second meeting focused on the development of real actions with which to achieve concrete change in the food systems. The awareness that change is urgent was present in all those who took part and inspired the identification of common priorities. The structure of the dialogue was designed to encourage open and constructive discussion. The questions addressed to the participants concerned expectations and desires from both the production and consumer side. There are interventions and challenges to be addressed, which are unachievable without the commitment of both sides and that is why the encounter between these two categories can be the fuse from which transformation can come.The premises of this dialogue were to promote inclusive and win-win solutions by adopting a holistic and systemic approach to understanding how to act in a complex system like the food system. In fact, farmers and consumers are the first and last ring in the food value chain and it is essential that they strengthen and reinforce their collaboration, fostering a systems approach to the value chain based on a fairer share of value all along. In doing so, therefore, a multi-stakeholder inclusivity was embraced and it was emphasized that everyone is called upon to play their part. The topics covered were multiple and carefully selected to encourage exchanges and reflect the complexity of food systems. The outcomes identified during the previous dialogue were the starting point and the basis for the discussion and further development of this second dialogue. Throughout the dialogue, a balance was sought in the representativeness of both sides and the involvement of all was ensured. The principle of complexity, respect and trust was embraced by all participants, who appreciated the opportunity for interaction and mutual exchange and hoped that cooperation could continue in the future. The starting point for the dialogue was the recognition of the principle of "acting with urgency". The desire to take common action and issue a joint declaration was expressed, accelerating the pace of change and committing to a shared path.It is important to ensure the representativeness of all relevant categories. Also, it is good to consider that the list of registered participants reduces at the as some do not attend. Another aspect to consider: it is advisable to share in advance the topics on which the debate will develop, so that participants can be more prepared and participate even more actively. In particular, if the topics addressed are specific, it is recommendable to offer the possibility of getting information in order to put the participants at ease during the dialogue. Lastly, in order to cover all regions of the world - in case it is an international online event - it is recommended to organize multiple sessions in different time slots to allow the participation of representatives from different time zones.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The Dialogue at stake is the second in a three-dialogue series and is intended to revert to and expand on the topics discussed in the previous one. The structure included a morning and an afternoon session, where the same issues were addressed. Compared to the previous dialogue, the focus was on more specific questions, encouraging debate and the expression of possible differences on controversial points and dig into the issues that are at the heart of the transformation we want to see in the coming years. The aim, in fact, is to develop a vision for the evolution of food systems that takes into account the perspectives and priorities of both sides. One round of break up sessions was organized under the following themes: 1) Transforming consumption patterns 2) Delivering food security and nutrition 3) Sustainable production practices 4) Deconcentration of value in food chains Each discussion that took place in the various break-up sessions was reported back to the plenary by a representative from each of the two sides. At the end of this discussion, in the plenary session, strategies and visions were developed with respect to future steps that could be leveraged through the process.235238239240241242243244246247248249250251This dialogue was approached in a spirit of partnership and inclusiveness, resulting in a united voice of farmers and consumers. Considerable discussion took place on how to reshape the food chain and make it more sustainable. In doing so, however, attention was paid to the needs of both parties, starting with their expectations and concerns. The key points that emerged relate to the need to redefine the food system and redesign the public policies that support it. While farmers and consumers are the main players and potential drivers of change, they are not the only ones upon whom change can depend. There is a very complex food system that is always evolving. The danger in this area is that food has so many different impacts at national level that often the policies and actions that are taken end up being very diluted, delaying the progress that is needed. A core area, which sounds very obvious, concerns the promotion of cross-cutting national food policies. Very few countries have actually adopted policies with common priorities at national level covering not only health, environment and agriculture, but also trade policy, economic growth, education, which -although seemingly unrelated- affect the food system. Aligned governmental guidelines are urgently required across countries, regarding effective parental nutrition labelling, regulation of misleading claims or marketing practices, where there is certainly a role for responsible businesses, but also the need for a governmental framework to support these efforts. We're dealing with global supply chains and global companies across many different jurisdictions. It's really crucial, therefore, to harmonize national laws. Another relevant issue concerns prices and access to affordable food, where the dilemma revolved around being able to produce sustainably at a price that is not prohibitive for consumers. In this respect, the role of technology and digital solutions is crucial. Thanks to blockchain and QR codes, farmers can ensure more transparent and traceable production and share data with consumers who will be able to make more informed choices, on price as well.236238239240241242244245246247248249250251TRANSFORMING CONSUMPTION PATTERNS In this group, much emphasis was placed on education and the importance of bridging the knowledge gap between farmers and consumers. This begins in schools, including school canteens, and it ends in the supermarket where consumers need more information about the way of production in order to make sustainable choices. Furthermore, participants agreed that governments should create policies to bring consumers and farmers closer together, and especially to close the gap between producer and consumer prices.236238239240241242244245246247248249250251DELIVERING FOOD SECURITY AND NUTRITION According to the reporting speakers, the discussion developed around the following themes. First of all, once again, education was considered to have a key role to play. Both consumers and farmers need to be well informed about existing initiatives and regulations. Furthermore, it is good that farmers master the tools at their disposal in order to improve their production techniques and are updated on available agricultural best practices. However, technology and innovation can be a double-edged sword. Indeed, it is not always optimally used. Furthermore, it is essential to reduce food losses and ensure a functioning and fair food value chain in which all three sectors - from the producer, through the processor to the consumer - complement each other perfectly. Only in this way will it be possible to ensure a virtuous circle and to eliminate food waste. Hence, cooperatives are the winning solution in this process.236238239240241242244245246247248249250251SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTION PRACTICES Participants in this session reflected on the possibility that aesthetic and convenience factors often determine consumer choice. Although consumer awareness of sustainability issues has increased, the price and how a food appears can be a determining factor, not realizing that the price does not reflect all externalities and that what comes from the field can appear deformed. At the same time, consumers have expectations regarding access to healthy and nutritious food that are not always met. In this case, enforcement of existing legislation and standards comes into play. Farmers have expressed frustration at this point because there is not always a levelling of standards which makes production very difficult. However, a positive aspect is that farmers are investing a lot in new technologies and digitalisation. This allows them to increase the quality of what is produced, have more control and reduce the environmental impact.236238239240241242244245246247248249250251DECONCENTRATION OF VALUE IN FOOD CHAINS The debate opened with a mutual recognition of good practices on both sides of the food value chain. There was consensus on the need to maintain transparency throughout the food chain, so that even the price of food could be set fairly. In addition, the pandemic has brought to light that alternative models are possible and feasible and has made it clear that direct sales from producer to consumer are viable. Finally, it is necessary to reshape the chain with sustainability and justice at its core. Participants agreed that a just food system is needed and that it is essential to respect the local production, local crops, local types of animals, and to avoid homologation. Each country, each region has its own personality and the base of the system has to be transparency and trust.237All panellists and participants agreed on the positions expressed and elaborated during this second dialogue. Although there was an emerging need to establish practices that can enhance trust between producers and consumers in the food systems, globally.

2021-06-03 11:45:23204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/18375/203

5656362018125211515125322

The dialogue was organised in full respect of all the principles on which the Summit is based. The aim was to create an occasion that would give visibility and a voice to those who normally stand on the sidelines of the debate. In particular, this second meeting focused on the development of real actions with which to achieve concrete change in the food systems. The awareness that change is urgent was present in all those who took part and inspired the identification of common priorities The structure of the dialogue was designed to encourage open and constructive discussion. The questions addressed to the participants concerned expectations and desires from both the production and consumer side. There are interventions and challenges to be addressed, which are unachievable without the commitment of both sides and that is why the encounter between these two categories can be the fuse from which transformation can come.The premises of this dialogue were to promote inclusive and win-win solutions by adopting a holistic and systemic approach to understanding how to act in a complex system like the food system. In fact, farmers and consumers are the first and last ring in the food value chain and it is essential that they strengthen and reinforce their collaboration, fostering a systems approach to the value chain based on a fairer share of value all along. In doing so, therefore, a multi-stakeholder inclusivity was embraced and it was emphasized that everyone is called upon to play their part. The topics covered were multiple and carefully selected to encourage exchanges and reflect the complexity of food systems. The outcomes identified during the previous dialogue were the starting point and the basis for the discussion and further development of this second dialogue. Throughout the dialogue, a balance was sought in the representativeness of both sides and the involvement of all was ensured. The principle of complexity, respect and trust was embraced by all participants, who appreciated the opportunity for interaction and mutual exchange and hoped that cooperation could continue in the future. The starting point for the dialogue was the recognition of the principle of "acting with urgency". The desire to take common action and issue a joint declaration was expressed, accelerating the pace of change and committing to a shared path.It is important to ensure the representativeness of all relevant categories. Also, it is good to consider that the list of registered participants reduces at the as some do not attend. Another aspect to consider: it is advisable to share in advance the topics on which the debate will develop, so that participants can be more prepared and participate even more actively. In particular, if the topics addressed are specific, it is recommendable to offer the possibility of getting information in order to put the participants at ease during the dialogue. Lastly, in order to cover all regions of the world - in case it is an international online event - it is recommended to organize multiple sessions in different time slots to allow the participation of representatives from different time zones.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247249250251The Dialogue at stake is the second in a three-dialogue series and is intended to revert to and expand on the topics discussed in the previous one. The structure included a morning and an afternoon session, where the same issues were addressed. Compared to the previous dialogue, the focus was on more specific questions, encouraging debate and the expression of possible differences on controversial points and dig into the issues that are at the heart of the transformation we want to see in the coming years. The aim, in fact, is to develop a vision for the evolution of food systems that takes into account the perspectives and priorities of both sides. One round of break up sessions was organized under the following themes: 1) Transforming consumption patterns 2) Delivering food security and nutrition 3) Sustainable production practices Each discussion that took place in the various break-up sessions was reported back to the plenary by a representative from each of the two sides. At the end of this discussion, in the plenary session, strategies and visions were developed with respect to future steps that could be leveraged through the process.235238239240241242243244246247248249250251The concept that has been reinforced and reiterated is the will and the need to create an alliance between farmers and consumers, built on trust. This dialogue, then, has been recognized as the first step towards a long-lasting coalition between the two real pillars of food systems: farmers and consumers. It revealed the urgent necessity to redistribute power along the food value chain in order to create more equity and ensure food availability, sustainability and health. Moreover, it opened the door to a deeper understanding of the work done by farmers in their fields and to witness the process of food creation before it reaches consumers' plates. Consequently, the keywords that characterised this meeting were trust and informed choice. Participants expressed a willingness to engage and work together to create something different and reverse the vision according to which the two parties are the most fragmented and weakest in the food chain.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251TRANSFORMING CONSUMPTION PATTERNS In this group, the debate was particularly active and focused on broad themes, seeking mutually convenient solutions. Much emphasis was placed on the role of education and the importance of its accessibility to all. A critical point discussed was the possibility of obtaining reliable information about the environmental impact of products and their sustainability. While consumers assume that food is safe, it is not as easy to find information about sustainability. On this last point, the multidimensionality of the concept of sustainability was underlined, encompassing the economic and social as well as the environmental sphere. Technology helps us in terms of traceability and transparency, alleviating the lack of time that can afflict consumers. Indeed, consumers who want to make informed and responsible choices may not always have the adequate resources and tools. Moreover, correct and complete information is not only consumers' prerogative but also a concern of producers who are keen to communicate to consumers how they have carried out their work and what the food they produce contains. A final point, therefore, concerned shortening the supply chain to strengthen the contact between farmers and consumers.In this group, much emphasis was placed on education and the importance of bridging the knowledge gap.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251DELIVERING FOOD SECURITY AND NUTRITION The discussion opened with the problem of power redistribution along the food supply chain and the flow of information. Frequently as a result of partial knowledge and understanding of the process, there is disconnect between producers and consumers' demands and expectations. Another element that the group focused on is the role that government can play in facilitating or not facilitating sustainable production and encouraging fair supply chain. However, the issue that has most pervaded the debate is the role of proteins in a healthy and nutritious diet. Today, we are witnessing a tendency to replace animal proteins with vegetable proteins, ignoring or neglecting the miraculous effects that ruminants have in transforming cellulose originating from land where cultivation is not feasible into nutrient dense, high quality proteins. Questions were also raised about the true nutrient contribution of processed and transformed foods, which can undermine good nutrition.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTION PRACTICES Participants reflected on the spread of misinformation and difficulties in transferring reliable, science-based information. This is the pivotal point for cementing trust between each other. Therefore, changing the message too frequently and not anchoring it in evidence-based research leads to confusion and misinformation. Once again, technology has been recognised as a good vehicle to support evolving agricultural practices. However, there is still a need to make it accessible, especially to farmers in developing countries.237All panellists and participants agreed on the positions expressed and elaborated during this second dialogue. Although there was an emerging need to establish practices that can enhance trust between producers and consumers in the food systems, globally.

2021-06-03 14:36:16204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/10128/203

5901120199595923325610164

Dialogue Curator and Convenors organised the dialogue with full respect and commitment to the UN Food Systems Summit principles of engagement. The principles were integrated and implemented during all phases- from planning to reporting.Dialogue convenors dedicated a lot of time and effort to define the scope of the event to ensure that it respects the complexity and diversity of the food systems and speaks to the urgency of food systems transformation. In addition, the dialogue itself has a very strong focus on multi-stakeholder engagement and inclusivity. The convenors contacted more than 400 representatives across sectors and geographies. Our main focus was to engage civil society groups whose voices are often underrepresented. For that, we put additional effort into reaching out to groups, especially those based in the Global South, regardless of their position/support for the UN Food Systems Summit. The event was invitation-only to ensure a balanced representation across sectors. Trust and respect were the core values guiding the conversation.The principles of engagement are unique since they outline the invaluable aspect of an actual dialogue instead of a lecture series or debate. As dialogue is all about inclusivity, respect and a safe space for discussion, the principles of engagement should be integrated into the process as early as possible.

Yes

23423823924024124224324424524624724824925025150by40 and Action Track 2, led by Dr Gunhild Stordalen, Founder and Executive Chair of EAT, UN Food Systems Summit, convened an independent UN Food Systems Summit Dialogue ‘Engaging Powerholders in Catalysing Food Systems Change’. The event brought together a wide range of stakeholders, including civil society groups, those from the private sector, national, regional, and international bodies. All in all, 59 participants joined the conversation. This was a perfect number to ensure lively and in-depth discussions in the breakout groups, simultaneously allowing a wide range of stakeholders to be represented. The dialogue aimed to generate a critical set of suggestions from civil society representatives for each of the stakeholder groups identified below on how to ensure inclusivity and actionability of the Summit outcomes and determine a pathway for taking these outcomes forward. As a conversation starter, the event serves as an essential step towards the Pre-Summit in July. The dialogue was curated by Lasse Bruun, CEO of 50by40 and Global Civil Society Lead for Action Track 2 of the UN Food Systems Summit. Speakers: - Lasse Bruun, CEO of 50by40 and Action Track 2 Global Civil Society Lead (Dialogue Curator) - Dr Gunhild Stordalen, Founder and Executive Chair of EAT and Action Track 2 Chair - Yon Fernandez-de-Larrinoa, Chief of the FAO Indigenous peoples Unit Facilitators: - Zachary Tofias, Director of the Food and Waste Program at C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group - Helena Wright, Policy Director at the Jeremy Coller Foundation - Lana Weidgenant, Deputy Director at Zero Hour International and Action Track 2 Youth Vice-Chair - Vositha Wijenayake, Executive Director at SLYCAN Trust - Jørgen Torgerstuen Johnsen, Consultant, Food and Nutrition Action in Health Systems unit at WHO - Lina Mahy, Technical Officer, Food Systems Unit of the Department of Nutrition and Food Safety at WHO The core part of the event was breakout discussions organised around different stakeholder groups: - Intergovernmental - National - Subnational - Citizens/Consumers - Private Sector/Investors Key question: - What are the concrete steps key stakeholders/powerholders can take, from the perspective of civil society to action recommendations coming out of the Summit? Questions addressed in the breakout sessions: - How to ensure that the key recommendations are both inclusive, ambitious and actionable? - How to make them applicable and linked to other existing processes and multilateral frameworks? - What should actors at each level of food systems do to take these recommendations forward? - How to empower key actors of the food systems to facilitate a successful implementation? Event format: - Introductory statements by a diverse group of relevant and esteemed speakers (30 min) - Breakout discussions with an interactive element using an online collaboration tool called Miro to capture and share thoughts and notes. (60 min) - Sharing key learnings/reporting back (30 min)235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251- It is essential to define key areas and set one strong core message/goal/statement, e.g. Demand for Food Justice to bring to COP26 (prevent from lobbying) - Localise solutions: Focus on local businesses, ensure availability of healthy and plant-based food Meet communities where they are and adapt nutritional recommendations Tailor-made strategies for specific areas Open communication on the politics of how the implications would be for different countries - Distribution of power and capital in our food systems: ensure a fair allocation at all stages of the food chain and include everyone in decision making - from seed production to where we purchase our food - Scale up CSO actions to ensure accountability and transparency (watchdog role) - Identification of responsibilities linked to other processes at a national and international level - Communication: Improve clarity: who is involved in decision-making, identifying success stories and private sector leaders, i.e. who is in the leadership teams of each Action Track? Ensure language used is inclusive, empowering and builds trust (tool kits, key areas to focus on, stakeholders who might be positive to change) - Inclusivity: Having policies and processes that are inclusive and participatory, which include actors who are not focused only on the food sector (holistic approach) Multi-actor processes and having key actors including vulnerable communities at the decision making tables - all groups should be able to participate, including across civil society - Focus on outcomes that feed into existing processes; building on existing entry points and scaling them up to ensure that it is possible to increase ambition - More focus on capacity building and enhancing technical expertise for stakeholders and CSOs to engage in concrete actions - Networks and Connections: It’s critical to connect the dots: Intergovernmental processes need to be better connected, such as COP and FSS Building bridges between stakeholders/ different actors working in silos, i.e. food systems on the environment etc.; networks cross-cutting expertise/actors; national dialogues or committees; Enhancing coordination across sectors at the national level For sub-national governments to be fully included in advancing solution sets that emerge from the Summit, a bridge must be built into the formal National FS Dialogues and the commitments being made at national levels - Actions leading to making the healthy choice the easy choice – accessibility, affordability Identifying how the outcomes could contribute to different national and international processes – contributing to the integration process236238239240241242243246247249250251Intergovernmental: - Investing in testing and pilot projects with farmers and producers, especially in areas with limited resources, to get early feedback to include into the process is crucial - For complete transparency, the FSS government structure should be open to civil society, and an accountability system should be set up, shared and owned by all the stakeholders - Connect all the multilateral frameworks that exist already (including trade aspects to be built on) to change food systems, e.g. UNFCCC, SDGs, Sendai Framework, CFS, regional or bilateral processes - Food Systems have to play an essential role at COP26 - catalyse civil society towards it; this is a role of the UN - UNFSS representatives should take urgent action in engaging underrepresented groups more actively - Informing about the term Food Systems is essential to raise awareness across all levels of engagement - explanation/storytelling is needed to create necessary common approach/synergies - Engage UN Member States as champions for the solutions that the FSS recommends - Stakeholder engagement in different states /cities is necessary to include vulnerable groups - All actions must be transdisciplinary, inclusive, and aligned with rights-based approaches to achieve equitable food systems transformation. - This includes building processes and policy platforms on democratic principles, including transparency, accountability, and inclusive participation to ensure that interventions are both evidence- and rights-based.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251National: - To empower key actors in food systems, the focus on accessibility and affordability as well as the guarantee of technical and financial support provided for the implementation of actions are essential - Enhance coordination across sectors at the national level - Having a mapping of each actor’s role at the end of the Summit to carry forward actions and ensure that they are concretised - Risk management, risk transfer, social protection, and focus on resilience building factors are important - Directly reaching out to national governments is crucial– preparations to engage with existing actors to bring in different actors - Ensure that government subsidies are going towards supporting the vulnerable communities/farmers etc. - Actions that focus on going back to basics – systems thinking and systems innovation, taking into account externalities and systems solutions - Actions that focus on changing the existing thinking which is leading to unhealthy food systems, and food choices - It is crucial to consider qualitative as well as quantitative indicators, and targets are being set up accordingly - It is crucial to balance incremental (no bandage solutions) and systematic approaches (new ways of looking at, trade etc.) - The UN Food Systems System is voluntary – what is the best way to engage countries? (balance to be innovative and conservative in ways that do not scare away countries) - Shifting policies towards focusing more on broader actions and implications - tangible solutions236238239240241242246249Subnational: - Frame actions as collective missions that invite people to contribute to a continuous, evolving journey - It is essential to move the needle further down towards the ground, to empower local leaders better. Resources and decision power should be transferred from the UN and nation-states more to a city-level through different mechanisms and processes. With strong fora and facilitators, we need to start asking questions and empower conversation at a lower level where the issue begins and then build up from there. - Sub-national governments must be empowered to act with resources and tools so they can not only recognise a solution set or Action Area as a priority but also translate it into actual movement/call for change - Layer an accountability mechanism into the summit that gives more power to cities.236238239240241242244245246249250251Individual: - Individuals should change their consumption patterns, but the food system summit needs to create an environment of change for those patterns. - Shared responsibility across stakeholders. The pressure shouldn’t all be on individuals shoulders, and society needs to offer support for change - Procurement is impactful. For example, food in schools/universities can contribute to change towards a more healthy & sustainable consumption which is why more focus is needed on the impact of surroundings - It’s critical to connect the dots: Intergovernmental processes need to be better connected, such as COP and FSS. The food system is a huge contributor to the climate crisis, and there is so much potential to address that issue jointly, but connections being made are not visible - It’s impossible to have an inclusive outcome without an inclusive input - efforts need to be at every level and go beyond the summit - There is a need to come to a common consensus and build up to make change - Acknowledge, boost power of localised advocacy236238239240241242243244245246249250Private sector: - Improve clarity: who is involved in decision-making, identifying success stories and private sector leaders, i.e. who is in the leadership teams of each Action Track? - Match Private Sector goals with already established normative goals - There are many different types of the private sector: some are big transnational ones; some are small-holders. Additionally, the split between Global North and Global South needs to be considered - There is a need to focus more on the large corporations that are significant for the change to a more sustainable system - Realising the importance of “unusual” alliances between NGOs, private and public sector is essential - these partnerships can be useful, but it’s important to find a balance between the partnerships without the risk of greenwashing - Major corporations are often held accountable for their actions - they change due to reputational risks since they are afraid to have these impacts reported in the media. Media transparency and reporting information are crucial to track these issues. - Investors may only know about the environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) risks if reported in the media. - It matters who is using and managing data should not be misused or captured. - Climate change: things are often being defined in terms of climate targets – but for example imported deforestation is an injustice that needs to be addressed accordingly - We need circularity of the economy and of thinking; rather than an extractive model - Progress might come faster from the private sector than the official side of things - For example, EAT Lancet dietary guidelines are being adopted by Denmark and that gives us hope; they have worked on changing norms and showing that people want to change their diet237238239240241242246Some concerns have been raised about corporate co-optation and the legitimacy of the UNFSS as a democratic process, which was also reflected in the conversations during our dialogue. Some participants seemed to be more optimistic about the overall prospect of the summit, whereas, others expressed their concerns about perspectives of the summit itself, the way it is organized, it’s importance and inclusivity aspects. This divergence appeared to be especially visible in our different breakout sessions. Some groups jointly created a sense of hope and focused on future possibilities, however, other conversations turned out to be rather based on underlying legitimacy issues which undermine the process itself. Another divergence that emerged from a breakout session was who would take on the leading role and responsibilities needed to implement and monitor the solutions proposed in the Food System Summit. Whether it should be the UN agencies or Governments while NGOs act as watchdogs. No clear conclusion was met but UN agencies were emphasized to have more of an active and leading role although the lack of power from the UN was recognized.

2021-06-03 19:39:30205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/16241/100

11831965274036824281813113127181383214300015671154250805017129

Kuwait recognized the importance of hosting phase two of National Food Systems Dialogue as part of Member State Dialogue. Kuwait was the first Arab country to hold a member state National Food System Dialogue on 30 March 2021. During phase one of the dialogue, many important topics were raised , most importantly improving nutritional status of school children in Kuwait. The event embraced the Summit principles of engagement: Act with Urgency, commit to the Summit, Be Respectful, Recognize Complexity, Embrace Multi Stakeholder Inclusivity, Complement the Work of Others, and Build TrustKuwait National Food Systems Dialogues invited multiple stakeholders with a background related to school children health and academia to participate in phase two of the National dialogue in preparation of the UN Food Systems Summit in September 2021. The dialogue was organized by the Public Authority for Food and Nutrition (PAFN) - Kuwait and was held virtually. Participants included stakeholders from Ministry of Education, Ministry of Health, Kuwait University, parents, food industry, Non Governmental Organization, activists, research and academic institutions, National security agency, FAO headquarters, Kuwait representative at FAO and most importantly school students. This diverse group of stakeholders provided a comprehensive view of nutritional and health status of school children in Kuwait. Participants shared diverse perspectives, discussed and recommended applicable solutions. The Chatham House Rule of non-attribution encouraged participants to engage in the discussion.It is very important to appreciate the principles of engagement when preparing for the dialogue. Spending enough time to list all stakeholders related to the topic discussed is important to ensure a successful dialogue. It is also noted that the inclusion of decision makers from Ministry of Education, as well as school students and parents had an added value to the dialogue and ensured that no one was left behind. Every opinion is important, and everyone shared their views in a very respectful manner.

Yes

234238239240242243244245246247248249250251Kuwait held a national phase 2 dialogue addressing improving the nutritional status of school children in Kuwait virtually on 26 May 2021 in preparation for the Food Systems Summit (FSS) in September 2021. Different stakeholders participated in the dialogue representing sectors related to nutrition and health of school students with a total of 118 participants. Participants conducted a thorough diagnosis of overweigh and obesity among school students which highlighted the following points: 1) Lack of nutritional awareness in the school environment (administration, students and parents). 2) Unhealthy school food environment. 3) Insufficient implementation of physical education curriculum in some government schools. 4) Failure of school administrations to abide by school canteen regulations.2352382392402422432442452462472482492502511. Developing a national nutrition strategy under the umbrella of the Council of Ministers to ensure the achievement of sustainable development goals regarding food security. It was stressed on the importance of meeting nutritional requirements of the population and focus on providing health promotion and education. 2. Mobilize government, private sector, and civil society support to ensure implementation. 3.Develop a national committee for promoting the nutritional status of school children chaired by PAFN with Ministry of Education and School Health Department in the Ministry of Health to implement and monitor WHO/FAO recommendations on school children. 4. Collaboration between PAFN and Ministry of Education to raise nutritional awareness and capacity building among the school administration, parents, and students. 5- Collaboration between PAFN and food industry regarding the importance of reformulating school snacks ( no added sugars, no added salt, no TFA and no sugar sweetened beverages). 6. Enforcing physical education curriculum and adding nutrition and applied nutrition curricula. 7. Developing school agricultural projects and activities to educate students on the importance of sustainable food production , by selling planted school produce in school canteens and motivating students to participate in school farming competitions, in collaboration with Public Authority for Food and Nutrition , the Public Authority Of Agriculture Affairs And Fish Resources and the Environment Public Authority. 8. Conduct research to evaluate and assess the following - before and after implementation: ● Nutrition awareness programs of school canteen staff . ● Dietary food habits among school children. ● The effectiveness of enforcing physical education.2362382392402422432442452462472482492502511) Establishing the national committee for promoting the nutritional status of school children chaired by PAFN with Ministry of Education and school Health Department in the Ministry of Health to implement and monitor WHO/FAO recommendations on school children. 2) Partnership with food Industry for abiding with and reformulation of food products. 3) Conducting research with academic institutions in Kuwait to assess, evaluate and monitor policies and intervention programs. 4) Collaboration with Ministry of Information for promoting nutrition policies and activities in the country.237238239240242243244245246247248249250251There was no disagreement between participants. In fact all participants agreed on the importance of improving nutritional status of school children and developing appropriate and corrective actions to reduce health risks.

2021-06-03 19:42:08205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/16258/100

750154611338372643022101208131633001300236031581902010570

Kuwait recognized the importance of hosting phase two of National Food Systems Dialogue as part of Member State Dialogue. Kuwait was the first Arab country to hold a member state National Food System Dialogue on 30 March 2021. During phase one of the dialogue, many important topics were raised , most importantly food loss and food waste management in Kuwait. The event embraced the Summit principles of engagement: Act with Urgency, commit to the Summit, Be Respectful, Recognize Complexity, Embrace Multi Stakeholder Inclusivity, Complement the Work of Others, and Build Trust.Kuwait National Food Systems Dialogues invited multiple stakeholders with a background related to managing food loss and food waste in Kuwait to participate in phase two of the National dialogue in preparation of the UN Food Systems Summit in September 2021. The dialogue was organized by the Public Authority for Food and Nutrition (PAFN) - Kuwait and was held virtually. Participants included stakeholders from government sector, private sector, food industry, Non Governmental Organization, activists, research and academic institutions, FAO headquarters and Kuwait representative at FAO. This diverse group of stakeholders provided a comprehensive view about food loss and food waste in Kuwait and means to manage them effectively and maintain sustainability. Participants shared diverse perspectives, discussed and recommended applicable solutions. The Chatham House Rule of non-attribution encouraged participants to engage in the discussion.It is very important to appreciate the principles of engagement when preparing for the dialogue. Spending enough time to list all stakeholders related to the topic discussed is important to ensure a successful dialogue. It is also noted that the inclusion of decision makers from Public authority of agriculture and fish affairs, Environment Public Authority as well as food charities had an added value to the dialogue and ensured that no one was left behind. Every opinion is important, and everyone shared their views in a very respectful manner.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The participants focused on the proper consumption requirements which depends on proper production, and the need for clear organization and policy to regulate the process of local productions, marketing them, and encourage food industries by modifying and changing the subsidy policy, and that the subsidy be done according to the quality and not the quantity. There was also a focus on the importance of protecting the local products from competition in the market , due to the inability of local food companies to market their products, forcing producers to throw their products away and waste them. A proposal was discussed to license factories to convert the surplus production to other food products. Participants also discussed the importance of managing water by treating wasted water from residential and industrial units and use it for plant irrigation not for food consumption.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The following are some solutions proposed to reduce food waste : 1. allocating shelves for food commodities that are near their expiration date, to be offered for sale at a reduced value in the food market. 2. Restaurant owners provide meals in different portions at appropriate prices, in order to encourage customers to order meals with small quantities of food at reduced prices, which contributes to reducing waste. 3- involving charities مlike the Kuwait Food and Relief Bank to distribute the surplus food for quick consumption to needy families, with the importance of applying food tracking mechanisms and policies to ensure food safety and consumer protection. 4. Providing information about storage methods for foodstuff and directions for preserving foods on the packaging label. 5- Using modern technology to reduce food waste, such as electronic platforms and applications to reach the needy and distribute food to them as a societal responsibility. Furthermore, excess and surplus meals can be registered and sold the next day at a lower price to low-income people. 6. Emphasize the importance of issuing laws and legislations to reduce food and water waste. 7. Increase consumer awareness: * To encourage buying their needs only without the need to store foodstuff in large quantities. * To ration purchase as needed to reduce food waste. * To amend purchasing and consumption habits so that the consumers prepare a list of their food needed before heading to the food store so that the consumers are obligated to buy only their needs according to the pre-prepared list2362382392402412422432442452462472482492502511. The importance of establishing a Supreme committee for food security headed by the prime minister and members from PAFN, Public Authority for agriculture affairs and fish resources, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Customs Bureau, Chamber of commerce, Public Authority of Investment, food unions and relevant stakeholders. 2. Establish laws and legislations to allow near expiry date food products to be sold at a lower price while maintaining its safety. 3. Allowing licensed factories to convert surplus production to other form of food products and commodities. 4. Collaborating with Ministry of Information to promote awareness about proper water use and food consumption. 5. Reformulating subsidy policies to widen the variety and diversity to benefit all237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251There was agreement among the participants regarding the necessity of finding solutions to manage food and water loss and waste in Kuwait. There were different views of food subsidies. Some suggested increasing the amount of subsidies on some food products, while others called for an immediate need to reevaluate the current protocol of subsidies. Some participants advocated the imposition of food taxation (sugar tax), while others disagreed. There were few participants who advised the increase in the prices of water and some foods, which contributes to the rationing of consumption, while others objected this opinion because it will increased the economic burden on most families.

2021-06-04 09:13:47204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/12208/203

1204872

The dialogue was organized in the framework of a collaboration between Europe (EU) and Africa (AU) in relation to Food and Nutrition Security and Sustainable Agriculture(FNSSA). Through a project named LEAP4FNSSA (Long-term EU-AU Partnership for Food and Nutrition Security and Sustainable Agriculture Project). Participants were mainly stakeholder groups from a range of institutions in Europe and Africa involved in the partnership between EU-AU in relation to FNSSA The dialogue was organized as a virtual dialogue with the various participants. Multi-stakeholder engagement was enabled through participation of actors from Research institutions, Universities, Policymakers from both EU andAU and Development partners. Prior to the dialogue, a study has been commissioned on Food Systems Resilience undertaken by University of Hohenheim. The Dialogue started with the presentation of the Study report. We invited 5 experts who studied the report and participated in the dialogue. The five Experts (3 females/2males from EU-AU Institutions) made contributions through a moderated panel session, which enabled them to address specific issues in relation to the presentation and share their thoughts and perspectives on the Study report and its key outcomes and recommendations. The workshop was designed to be inclusive and participatory, with active engagement of participants through instruments of Chat box, Polling and Mentimeter contributions. Breakout Sessions: Plenary discussions on the Group Reports, showed that there was unanimous agreement across all 4 groups, that the subject of Food Systems resilience is suitable to include in priority topics for the EU-AU Research and Innovation partnership on FNSSA into the future and highlighted some research areas that could be addressed in the bi-continental platform. Polls: In one of the polls ran, 66% agreed that the Study report capture their expectations on what Systems resilience encompassesGenerally, the dialogue cut across the principles of engagement particularly in relating to the urgency, focus on the summit, recognising complexity and the multi-stakeholder inclusivity. A key dimension of the outcomes were seven Guiding Principles that came out of the study which were extensively discussed during the dialogue and this underline the principles of engagement. The seven principles were: i) Maintain diversity and redundancy, ii) Manage connectivity, iii) Manage slow variables and feedbacks, iv) Foster complex adaptive system thinking, v) Encourage learning, vi) Broaden participation, and vii) Promote polycentric governance systems. There were discussions around diversity of understandings and perspectives with regard to Food Systems and three clear recommendations for moving forward were made. The first is the need to develop a Common Understanding of Food Systems Resilience, addressing concept, trade-offs, and metrics. There was a consensus that the UNFSS Dialogues would be a good opportunity to set these processes off. The second was to develop Science-based Policies for Food Systems Resilience, recognizing that the principles of resilience can help to forge resilience strategies in policymaking. The final recommendation was to integrate Food Systems Resilience in EU-AU partnership research agenda.Yes, it is very important to strengthen the issue of commitment to the goals of the summit because of the centrality of Food Systems and giving the challenges of climate change which therefore make resilient and adaptability key element. There is also a need to consider the importance of multi-stakeholder inclusivity. We would like to emphasize the need for balance between the research stakeholder and the development and extension partner partnerships and this needs to be considered in the dialogue to ensure adequate representation.

Yes

234242244248249250251The mentimeter one-word analysis done shows the emphasis on three themes: Resilience, Sustainability and Participation, as core pillars in the concept and promotion of food systems resilience. The dialogue focused on the Action Track 5. The presentation was done in three segments. The first segment addressed the Conceptual Framework of Food Systems Resilience, including aspects of balancing synergies and trade-offs, as well as providing an analysis of methodological approaches used in Food Systems Resilience. This was followed with a segment addressing Resilience to Shocks and Stresses, including policy implications of resilience in Food Systems. The COVID-19 pandemic and its impacts on human health and global food security were used as a case study in this analysis. The third segment provided the Conclusions and Recommendations, emphasizing seven Guiding Principles that came out as essential for building Food Systems Resilience in the face of shocks and stresses. These principles were: i) Maintain diversity and redundancy, ii) Manage connectivity, iii) Manage slow variables and feedbacks, iv) Foster complex adaptive system thinking, v) Encourage learning, vi) Broaden participation, and vii) Promote polycentric governance systems.235238241242244248249250251The findings from the dialogue shows that the role of science in improving Food Systems resilience is key for the UN Food Systems Action Track 5 on ‘Build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stresses’. Other conclusions from the dialogue are also listed below: • One of the greatest contributions that the LEAP4FNSSA can bring onboard is bridging the science-policy interface. How can AU-EU Science influence policy in both continents • How do we form a coalition of scientists and policymakers especially within Africa where policymakers are still only asking about how to increase agriculture productivity instead of looking at how our Food Systems can deliver quality diets, good jobs, equitable livelihood within acceptable planetary boundaries for the population. Until the question change, the science-policy interface will remain an interface with frictions and lack common understanding. The EU-AU partnership LEAP4FNSSA will be key here. • Science needs to change in a way that supports the government to ask the right questions and invest in Food Systems in the face of competing needs like health, infrastructure among others. • There are dissenting voices in science that require harmonization. We need a science governance system that brings the best science on the table to support Food Systems transformation. • How do we keep food moving within countries when there are shocks? How does the African continental free trade area policy open trade among African countries and between Africa and Europe? What kind of question should be asked to ensure the free trade area supports the Food Systems’ resilience. We need data on the impact of trade on the Food Systems. How can we build the role of the local Food Systems within the region? In conclusion, participants were charged that, we do not only need sustainable, resilient, or healthy Food Systems, we need just and equitable Food Systems. Inclusion and equity should be key questions in the conceptualization of Food Systems. The study recommendation also include the integration of Food Systems Resilience in EU-AU partnership research agenda. This should include items such as: • Funding of trans-regional and transdisciplinary research • A platform for joint learning, such as on new challenges and emerging crises (e.g. COVID-19) • A better understanding of the interconnections between African and European Food Systems and joint response mechanisms • Include Resilience in the Research and Innovation partnership as a crosscutting theme.236242244248249250251The breakout session which had four groups, gave opportunities to the participants to give their thoughts on two questions below: Q1: Do you think the subject of Food systems resilience is a suitable area to include in priority topics for the EU-AU Research and Innovation partnership on FNSSA in future? How is this important for a bi-continental platform? It was agreed that the concept is important to include. Food systems resilience is a quite recent concept in many Africa where the focus of research has tended to focus on agricultural productivity. There is much that African scholarship can learn from European research on this topic. At the same, there also much that European scholarship can learn from African research, as well as Indigenous Knowledge Systems in Africa. This includes • learning from local farming systems, as well as indigenous crops, species and practices. This will assist with issues of declining biodiversity on both continents, understanding how to build back better, and how to change existing food systems towards more desirable outcomes. • A further reason why this topic is important is that research in food systems is a form of foreign policy, especially since other regions are interested in the African food system, and this is not always to the benefit of the continent. • The final issue related to the importance of promoting inclusivity in both regions, and to closer inequalities in food systems outcomes, and in control over the food systems. This is both between Africa and the EU, as well as within countries in each region. • Pandemic such as COVID 19 has disrupted the food system in both EU/Africa hence need to build resilience • Conflicts are affecting Africa with negative ripple effects in EU due to migration. Food systems are not isolated and joint efforts is needed. Challenges: • Conceptual and terminological confusion/’opaqueness’ • Food Systems perspective not prevalent in existing policy documents • Need to incorporate ‘relevant’ concerns of governments for policy Suggestions: • Policy brief: with proposals for common and operational definitions of Food Systems and Resilience definitions • Re-phrasing of Roadmap (‘refinement’) • Focus on interconnections of African and EU food systems (‘manageability’) • Integrate value chain dynamics in a broader 3-dimensional understanding via FSs Economic, environmental, social Q2: How can Research and Innovation (Research and Innovation) contribute to identifying pathways to more resilient food systems? This is about what research questions/ topics/ areas should be addressed in a Europe-Africa FNSSA platform (or Partnership), and linkage to Policy making. Some areas for research include: • better understanding seasonality, both annual and decadal, research on underutilized crops and species, what products and concepts developed in Europe would fit best in Africa, and vice versa. • Research on informal economies in both regions. A theme was how to democratize science, making it available to all, being inclusive. • Research in the area of seed systems, nutrition are needed? • Intensification: What kind of technology (GAP) do we need to intensify to take care of the increasing population? • How can we intensify and protect the natural resources to help us find solution to provide diverse food to the poor? • Inclusiveness in policy formulation? • Need for transdisciplinary teams • Trade related research topics (addressing policy makers’ concerns) • Study around climate smart agriculture and seed policy to ensure ease of movement of seed across the two continents? • Biodiversity: to look at underutilized food crops in Africa. • Youth population is huge and how can they be included in the discuss? • Circular economy is another area to avoid food waste • Consumer psychology studies will be helpful to understand how consumer choose a product • How (according to which criteria) are credits availed to Producers or to Traders or other actors in the value chain? • Finally, farmer-led research, and research on agro-ecology.237242244248249250251The workshop was designed to be inclusive and participatory, with active engagement of participants through instruments of Chat box, Polling and Mentimeter contributions. Participants were invited to share thoughts, on Research and Innovation themes, topics or issues that they see as crucial for advancing the cause of Resilient Food Systems. There was, as expected, great diversity of views. These are clustered under five broad areas indicated below: a. The need to generate what a Common understanding of what Food Systems Resilience implies. This will include communication and the need for coordination in capturing and disseminating information and data across all levels and geographies B. Indentification of drivers influencing resilience of Food Systems and sustainability. This should include Research and Innovation for contextual recommendations for ensuring the resilience of Food Systems and the importance of Trade-offs related to ensuring Food Systems Resilience. c. Identifying issues of vulnerabilities and losses. This should include environmental sustainability dimensions as well as local solutions based on cultural, social, and ecological systems. d. Local Food Systems and rights-based issues. This will include exploring local Food Systems solutions that are well-resourced, people-centered, ecologically sustainable and socially just. This also include a A rights-based approach emphasizes that those most affected by food insecurity should not only be able to participate meaningfully, but that governments must be accountable for these rights e. Other Areas of mention were 1)Gender issues in Food Systems resilience and 2) Balancing between food production, environmental conservation and management, and improving livelihoods.

2021-06-04 12:36:19204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/2893/93

1123379123229316286841642111221120717321212

The event was organized to convene between 100 - 150 guests to ensure the most diverse exchanges. The theme has been selected as a cross-cutting issue to the Summit and to generate some conversation outcomes across the Action Tracks. Each participant was encouraged to engage in a multi-stakeholder process and for each discussion to touch on the following points: a) Scope the problem that is the subject of their breakout room b) Identify ways to solve the problem c) What actions in next 3 years will have greatest impact on the discussion topic d) How will it be possible to tell if these actions are being successfulAfter the opening remarks and fire starter panel, participants were divided into sub “tables” in their own breakout rooms to discuss their topics and report back to the main room. There was a moderator and rapporteur in each breakout room to ensure everyone had an opportunity to be heard and voice opinions. Points of divergence were heard and noted in an open and productive manner.1) If breakout rooms are a part of your event, ensure to have greeters in each breakout room to ease the start of the conversation and ensure guests are not left alone in a room. 2) Arrange for your rapporteur forms to follow the FSDs gateway feedback form to ease the reporting back and ensure the principles of engagements are adequately covered.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249251On May 13 2021, 129 leaders gathered in a virtual High Level Dialogue as a contribution to the cross-cutting theme of Gender in preparation for the Food Systems Summit. The need to address gender issues in a holistic manner that ensures all areas and issues affecting women in food systems are necessary to achieve transformation. For example, addressing the lack of access to finance does little if we do not concurrently address the challenges of tenure rights. Policy makers and stakeholders must work together in a coordinated approach to tackle these issues and ensure systemic change. Gender has been identified as a cross cutting lever of change for the Food Systems Summit. Communities of interest were grouped around the following areas during the dialogue: • Human rights • Leadership and women’s voices • Proper maternal services • Nutrition for the first 1000 days • Women’s movement and agency • Education programs • Agricultural extension • Financial services • Access to markets and value addition • Entrepreneurship training Some challenges explored include: • Scoping and identifying ways to solve problems related to gender that will lead to transformation in the food system • Actions required in the next three years to have the greatest impact on the different issues affecting gender • Measures of success of the required actions Key issues which kept resurfacing were: • Policies: Governments, organizations and financial institutions need to incorporate gender considerations into their existing policies. • Accountability: Beyond having policies and guidelines in place, governments, organizations and financial institutions must have accountability mechanisms in place to ensure these policies are implemented and adhered to. • Financing: Investment from both the public and private sector is required to ensure gender programs and initiatives are implemented at scale to reach more women. • Partnerships and collaboration: governments, private sector, communities and other stakeholders including men need to work together to address the issues affecting women. • Data and metrics: Identifying metrics for measurement for programs is important and will contribute to availability of data, measuring success, identifying problems and improving programs. Quality disaggregated data should be built into programs before developing metrics for programs. • Tools/Innovation: Programs and initiatives need to provide the necessary tools to enable access. This includes investing in digital tools and emerging ag technologies.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The UNFSS draft game changing solutions has some major gender gaps which should be addressed urgently. The process will benefit from the inclusion of women as special ambassadors in the action tracks to strengthen the gender elements in the game changers. • Human Rights Access and control are local problems but require global tools to help women’s voices to be heard. Overcoming deeply entrenched systems will require creating channels for dialogue, not for women to just speak but men to be trained to listen, to be fair partners and ‘champions of enlightenment’. Localised dialogues with women in their communities are needed so as to create coherence and to ensure that the discussions are transformed into action and policy. It is also important to understand what empowerment means in different communities. Local engagement is required to understand local perceptions. • Leadership and Women’s Voices There is need to continue creating more opportunities and spaces for women to be represented in leadership positions. Current initiatives must be scaled and encouraged and to bring more women on board. There is need to promote the implementation of existing laws and conventions, such as the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women, UN Commitment to end child marriage by 2030. Institutions need to commit to setting gender-based targets, including quotas in boardrooms and organizational hierarchy and in hiring of personnel. • Proper Maternal Services Over half a million women die annually due to maternity complications. Therefore there is need to understand the linkages between women's empowerment, decision making power and maternal health care. Better information and messaging for vulnerable groups is required. Better investment, better education, more health workers and nutritional services are needed to cover these vulnerable populations. A system approach that involves schools and educational departments can help integrate maternal health education into curriculums. • Nutrition for the first 1000 days A mother’s nutrition during pregnancy and the nutrition a child receives in the first two years of life are vitally important influences in determining good health both now and into the future. These first 1000 days of life set us up for good health across our lives. Public health and nutrition education (also using local knowledge) should be incorporated into school feeding programmes which are also a point of entry into communities. There is need to stimulate and increase public private partnership for collaborations to improve nutrition & health. • Women’s Movements and Agency Women’s movements must be all encompassing ensuring women from all walks of life actively participate, from the small-scale farmer to the CEO. There is need to create a collective agenda that integrates smaller movements and unifies them into larger ones. More spaces to demonstrate the importance of women roles need to be created. Policy decisions and regulatory frameworks need to lock in legal protections for women for land tenure, access to capital, and health and nutrition of women and infants. • Education Programs Training and education have to be part of all identified solutions and embedded in other areas. Too often, solutions and financing are delivered without training and skills building. There is need for training platforms on multiple topics including for technical/home management and income generating projects without gender barriers/attribution. New approaches are needed to ensure education programs address the needs and priorities of both men and women across value chains. Governments need to dedicate budgets to enable women’s access to education and rights. • Agricultural extension Agricultural extension services have not attached much importance to reaching women farmers or women on the farm. There is a lack of data that effectively informs who, what, and where things have to be done. In addition, there is lack of communication to transfer knowledge, from scientific presentations into local languages and easy-to-understand language. There is need for holistic approaches that foster access to extension services by women. Private-public alliances that promote the extension of knowledge and new technologies to women must be fostered. Consideration should be given to who should approach women farmers, depending on country, customs, religious contexts. • Financial Services Real transformation in financial services will happen when gender becomes an integral part of the finance discussion rather than being a separate issue. There is need for governments, development partners and private financial institutions to relook and rework their policies to propel equitable financing for women farmers. These should range from assigning loans quotas for women, providing financial education to both recipients and providers of financial services providers, as well as providing the tools and infrastructure to make financial services accessible to women. Governments need to also create incentives for financial institutions by creating and providing co-financing systems. • Access to Market and Value-addition Gender smart programs require a holistic approach based on comprehensive ecosystem of global and local partners. There is need to have women representation along the entire value chain and not just at the production level. Women farmers must be supported to foster entrepreneurship in a holistic way, facilitate access to productive farming resources, information, technology, capacity...236238239240241242247251• Human Rights Gender is a cross-cutting of issue and should therefore be addressed as such. Women’s issues should not be dealt with in isolation. Policies must be gender-sensitive policies and allow women to have access and control of resources. They should be developed using transformative approaches that allow for the engagement of all stakeholders at a community level where gender norms are deeply entrenched. The role of the private sector needs to be recognized and leveraged to advance women’s empowerment.236238241242246249251• Leadership and Women’s Voices Socialize the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women that asserts that all women have a right to hold political offices, own property among a host of other recommendations. Institutions should commit to gender-based targets for leadership positions in the same way the UN requires meeting nationality quotas. The inclusion of women, especially young women in key discussions at global level policy platforms such as the CFS and the UNFCCC is critical. Women and men in leadership positions should be intentional about mentoring women and respecting their contributions. This calls for men to stand up for women, as with the example of “Sofagate” at the EU Council.236238239241242• Proper maternal services Lack of effective maternal health care services can undermine progress on broader human development. Well-designed cash transfer programmes that aim to be sustainable and have adequate resourcing can improve maternal health. Complementary awareness raising activities are critical for changing behaviour and attitudes at individual, household and community levels. Countries should invest in better education, more health workers, nutritional services and messaging for vulnerable groups. For example, Village Nutrition Volunteers - conduct community nutrition activities and nutrition education; help establish home or community vegetable gardens; formulate village nutrition action plan; prepare master list of wasted, stunted, under- and over-nourished children, pregnant and lactating mothers. Cash transfer program – there are good examples of cash transfer programmes that can be scaled up. For example, in the Philippines, women receive monetary support of 500 pesos (10 USD) per month per household and 300 pesos per school child. Beneficiaries must fulfill two conditions: 1) pregnant women have access to pre- and post-natal care and be attended during childbirth by a trained professional; 2) Parents must attend family development sessions which include topics on responsible parenting, health and nutrition.236238241242247249251• Nutrition in the first 1000 days Promote high-quality protein foods to improve health outcomes in the first 1000 days. This can be done by improving women’s access to and control over livestock by women. With the focus on women, there is much higher likelihood that this protein nutrition will also reach the rest of the family. School meals and school nutrition programs can be powerful for children to gain early knowledge on nutrition and health, knowledge that also trickles down to families. Partnerships and collaborations between companies and trusted local NGOs should be stimulated to work on programs related to the theme of adolescent nutrition and nutrition for the first 1000 days, while acknowledging the sensitivities around the topic related to marketing of infant foods. Public Health and nutrition education (also using local knowledge) should include educating men on the importance of adolescent, maternal and child nutrition, and also on available maternal services.236241242246247249251• Women’s movement and agency Partnerships are key in creating more spaces for women’s representations. There is need to create a collective agenda that integrates smaller movements and unifies them into larger ones. Local, national and internal women’s movements need to be strengthened to integrate food and farming issues and the role of women in agriculture. Women’s movements have a role to play in ensuring accountability of different actors, especially in higher levels e.g. companies, policy makers, regulatory authorities and in unlocking opportunities for women.236238239240241242246248251• Education Programs Facilitate girls’ access to go to and stay in school and promote continuing education and vocational training. Girls’ education from an early age is particularly important in addition to women’s education. Formalized mentorship and educational programs for girls tied to other social engagements such as sports and health. These have potential to build confidence and agency. Multi-stakeholder networking platforms should be established to facilitate the sharing of experiences and knowledge. Other actors (e.g., private sector/business) should be included as an opportunity for mentorship and promoting shared experiences/ career knowledge.236240241244246248251• Agricultural extension Extension is top priority for elevating women. Communication of existing policies, programs and opportunities in easy, understandable language and in clear messages to women farmers is important. Improved roads into every village will go a long way in ensuring women farmers have access to markets and services so that they are to sell their agriculture products and to buy much needed production inputs. Gather and standardize gender disaggregated data (sex, age, all categories) so that there is objective and scientific information to work with. Women should be encouraged to transfer technology and know-how among themselves. For example, the Global Farmer Network has a ‘No Till Strategy’ that has farmers working with fellow farmers to transfer knowledge and skills.236238239240241242245246248249251• Financial Services Policies to encourage gender representation in financial services should be adaptive in nature, promote innovation and provide overall direction, capture data and provide a method of evaluation of results. There is need to identify non-tradition assets that can be used as collateral as well as working with communities and financial service providers to ensure that they open women’s ownership of assets. Tools and infrastructure to aid access to financial services should be scaled to reach more women. These include digital savings, digital financial platforms emphasizing women inclusion and payments for environmental services schemes through direct mobile payments. Education programs need to target both financial providers and recipients. Farmers need to understand the financial services business as much as financial services providers understand theirs.236238239240241242245246251• Access to Market and Value-addition Promote the establishment of women cooperatives which could help with market access. Small scale farmers produce smaller quantities, cooperatives can play a critical role in helping small-scale farmers to bundle their produce together. Trade facilitation approaches need to be examined from a gender perspective, reducing trade barriers will have positive impact on women. Tariff escalation keeps developing countries from participating in global supply chains. This keeps women producers from entering the marketplace. Support coaching and training to increase effectiveness of women’s engagement in production and along the food chain. In some countries and for specific products, women are important in agricultural production, unfortunately women are less represented further along the value chain.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250251• Entrepreneurship Training Mentorship and coaching through programs such as bootcamps (e.g. Goldman and Sachs training for women; Erasmus program for entrepreneurs) provide an opportunity for women to learn business skills as well as interact and network with other women entrepreneurs, encouraging and creating a community of practice. Such models should be supported and replicated to allow more women to benefit from the coaching and mentorship. Trainings also need to bring men on board to expose them to the challenges that women face and promote a culture of understanding and break down barriers. Government initiatives should make it compulsory for academic institutions (universities, ag extension services) to offer women-specific training for farmers, students and business owners. Private sector members such as the PSM should make commitments to do voluntary training in their areas of interest. Follow up action should include creation of a portfolio of evidence and action, to encourage peer learning, share lessons learned and scale up. A mechanism to make it easier to access the examples, peer learnings and KPIs are required.237238239240241242251• UNFSS dialogues process should be inclusive and promote the active participation of women and in particular women’s groups representatives. • Gender is a cross cutting issue in all the SDGs and there is need to give it prominence across sectors to make sure women are not left behind. • Gender disaggregated data will facilitate not only the understanding of actual issues women face but would also be very useful to direct attention and efforts into areas that require support. • Mainstream women participation in financial institutions and facilitate women’s access to the finance by communicating gaps and opportunities. • Schools are important entry points to nutrition education and girls/ women’s education is key notwithstanding the region or area in the world. • Malnutrition at birth, due to lack of nutrient reserve of the mother (that is already developed in adolescence) is very difficult to correct. So, timely interventions are key and increasing focus on adolescent women is welcomed. Adolescent age is a key window of opportunity to intervene timely to ensure a healthy pregnancy and good infant health outcome that will last until later in life. • Getting the voices of SMEs and women entrepreneurs into the dialogues, especially the country-level dialogues, within the process of the UNFSS is critical.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/HLD-Gender-Report_FSD-Gateway-format_Final.pdfhttps://agrifood.net/

2021-06-04 17:19:51204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/13092/41

442717165233122736123113459

A participant guide was circulated in advance with background on the Food Systems Summit, the Principles for Engagement and the Dialogue’s theme. To encourage high-levels of engagement, participants received instructions on how to participate and the break-out session questions in advance. An inclusive invitation list was derived to ensure a variety of sector and stakeholder perspectives. Link -- https://register.advancingfoodsystems.ca/FSS_Independent_Dialogue_Participant_Guide.pdfThe principles of engagement were also incorporated into the Dialogue. As participants had varying levels of knowledge about the Food Systems Summit, the curator’s introductory remarks outlined the purpose of the Decade of Action and the Food Systems Summit, the need to act with urgency and the focus on transformative solutions. Furthermore, participants were asked to actively engage in small group discussions, moderators encouraged a diversity of perspectives and Chatham House rules were followed to allow for more open sharing of ideas. The breakout questions were chosen to explore the complexity and interconnected nature of our food systems and areas to learn and better work together.The FSS dialogue template and principles of engagement allowed for effective discussion and a unique format to hear from a diversity of food system actors.

Yes

234242243244248249250The Canadian agriculture and agri-food sector has placed significant focus to continuously improve the sustainability of agricultural production and its contribution to our national and internationally food systems. As we move towards 2030, Canadian agriculture has a role to play in sharing our learnings, determining areas for further enhancements, and offering solutions for our future food systems. The dialogue brought together a diverse set of food system actors to discuss what has worked best in the development of domestic and international markets for Canada and what “big ideas” are needed advance food system transformation. It had the dual purpose of ensuring the best global outcome while positioning Canada as a sustainable supplier of food in the markets of today and the future created from the Food System Summit. Access to a variety of markets (local, regional, national, and international) is a critical component to building a resilient farm and agriculture sector in Canada and around the globe and to mitigating the impact of vulnerabilities, shocks, and stresses – ACTION TRACK 5. Markets are not homogenous and occur at local, regional, national, and international levels. These markets coexist and intersect and, with proper policy and guidance, can transform the future of our food systems to deliver innovative socio, environmental and economic solutions. Core to any food systems are opportunities for farmers to sell what they produce. Markets connect farmers and consumers to opportunity enabling product diversity, nutritious food, and sustainable production and consumption. More largely they support vibrant family farms and rural communities by providing an important risk management function and a strong foundation to advance the Sustainable Development Goals. Canadian agriculture is rooted both domestically and internationally. Whether it be cereals, pulses, canola, soybeans, beef, pork or value-added products, Canada’s agriculture and food system relies on trade. Farmers can sustainably produce high-quality products but, as it stands, our domestic market alone lacks scale and is too small to support all of the Canadians who earn a living in agriculture and food and to ensure the efficiencies of scale to guarantee national food supplies. More largely, Canada imports food to ensure and sustain adequate food supplies and security. While Canada is a trading nation, new value added and farm to fork opportunities and increasing pressures on our food systems are creating new markets domestically. Consumers’ increasing interest in and support for local, regional and national food provides additional opportunities to diversify and to generate healthy food systems. Many successful farm-to-fork businesses have emerged to fill this space, as well investment in renewable fuels to advance our climate change goals. The Dialogue explored the role these different markets play in advancing food system transformations, the interplay, and solutions to increase nutrition and sustainable consumption, to boost environmental sustainability and to achieve more equitable livelihoods and resilience. The major focus was the creation of resilient markets, identification of existing synergies, policy levers to influence change and the food systems of our future and opportunities to better learn from each other and work together.235238239240242243244248249250While various themes emerged and solutions were shared by panelists and participants, common themes emerged. 1) Trade Resilient Ecosystems. A trade resilient ecosystem will provide predictable rules to manage disruptions from external market shocks and to safeguard our food systems from instability. 2) Trade-off between international and local markets. Market diversification activities (local, regional, international) can be pursued with little or no trade-off. Many interlinkages and synergies already exist and can be leveraged to strengthen and enhance our food system. An enabling policy and regulatory environment can protect food safety and enable sustainable consumption while encouraging private sector involvement. 3) Investments in value added and domestic food production. Strong value added and local and regional food systems are needed to increase consumer choice/availability of domestic food supplies and diversify market risk. Increased investment, innovation, and productivity can overcome existing barriers. 4) Innovation to advance system transformations Innovation throughout the supply chain from farm to consumers will drive transformations related to nature positive agriculture, sustainable consumption, food safety and food waste. No one size fits all, and different national/regional approaches, farm sizes and production practices need to be recognized. 5) Non-traditional partnerships. Increased collaboration and non-traditional partnerships are needed to drive a food-systems approach. Partnerships between primary agriculture, dieticians, food retailers and civil society, such as environmental non-government organizations or consumer groups, would create stronger, more collaborative approaches. 6) Policy levers and incentives. Policy should focus on enabling and incentivizing change (and not regulating). Alternative options or products need to be available before widespread change can be expected. Creating economic incentives, selecting appropriate data baselines, and recognizing local and regional context will strengthen engagement in sustainability measures. A competitive environment is required to attract investment in value-added processing.236242248249Discussion question 1 -- Action Track 5 is looking at how to increase resiliency to vulnerabilities, shocks, and stress to achieve food system transformations. How do we create more resilient markets? * International trade will play a central role in addressing some of the challenges experienced by our food systems. The COVID-19 health crisis had the potential to become a food crisis nationally, but decisions to keep borders open to goods and essential services and not impose trade restrictions maintained functional supply chains and mitigated impact. Concern with growing protectionism was noted, as was modernization of the World Trade Organizations and global food safety standards to provide predictability and mitigate risk (from external shocks and stresses). * Complementary to international trade, participants expressed interest in building stronger domestic markets – examples cited were value added on the Prairies and national fresh food and vegetables. Diversified market opportunities ensure resiliency by providing opportunities for farmers, reducing over-reliance on one country, supplier, crop, and product type, and ensuring more stable food supply. Participants expressed various benefits to processing raw commodities closer to production (jobs, economic development, hedge against international trade volatility) and shared potential opportunities. Various barriers were noted including Canada’s smaller population base, its geographic size and diversity, scalability, and its regulatory environment. * COVID-19 exasperated Canada’s systemic labour shortage in the agriculture and food sector. Restrictions to the movement of people (within and outside of Canada) and increased health and safety precautions placed significant pressure on our system from production, processing, packaging, and delivery. Canada’s fresh fruit and vegetable supply, livestock and seasonal products were most impacted jeopardizing production (fresh food cannot wait) and availability of food to consumers. * Various examples throughout the supply chain on how innovation can drive solutions were provided. At the farm-level, farmers require a complete toolbox, including biotechnology and crop inputs, to respond to evolving agronomic, disease and consumer pressures and to both mitigate the impact of climate change and contribute to global climate change goals. One size does not fit all, and any efforts to remove technology or apply a singular approach was viewed as counterproductive to the larger SDG and FSS goals. Farmer participants noted concern with singular, prescriptive approaches, such as agroecology and regenerative agriculture, and their applicability to a Canadian context. For value-added, innovation can drive increased productivity in Canada’s food supply (robotics) and address labour shortages. For consumers, clarity in labelling and improvements in packaging to support sustainable consumption (recycling, extends shelf life, portion sizes).236238241242249250Discussion question 2 -- The development of different markets – local, regional, national, and international – is core to a vibrant Canadian food system. Too often they are viewed as mutually exclusive. What synergies exist and how can they be leveraged? * Participants were asked to consider the trade-offs between different markets. From a Canadian context, viewing markets separately was seen as myopic as it fails to account for interlinkages, existing barriers and necessities related to size and geography. Canada is made up of various local, regional, national, and internationally focused markets (imports and exports) where food is required to move from areas of surplus to deficit to meet consumer food demands and sustain the livelihoods of those who rely on agriculture and food production. Imports are required to adequately provide for the food and nutrition needs of Canadians whereas exports support a vibrant agriculture and food sector. * Recognizing and capitalizing on existing synergies were viewed as important. An understanding of supply chains and interlinkages needs to be considered. To maximize production and reduce food waste, sub-products and their markets also need to be understood. For example, soybean meal for feed is a by-product of food and oil as is using all parts of the animal. It was also noted that the ability to access both domestic and international markets was integral to attracting private sector investment to Canada.236242243246248249Discussion question 3 -- What policy levers are needed to both influence change and support the growth of different markets for the food systems for the future? * Food system actors need to work together to articulate policy asks in unison, so the government receives appropriate signals and is empowered to develop the strongest, most effective policy approach. Those most impacted should be engaged in development and design. * Policy approaches should look at how to de-risk access to different markets, to create an enabling environment for innovation, and to attract more value-added processing nationally (food production in Canada). Many of the solutions focused on regulatory improvements such as reducing barriers to inter-provincial trade, improving Canada’s processing competitiveness, addressing labour shortages, and bringing more technologies to farmers. * Policy levers should focus on incentivizing and not regulating changes in behaviour. Alternatives options or innovations need to be available before regulation or policies are set if widespread change is expected. Selecting appropriate baselines and recognizing local and regional context also strengthens policy development. A competitive environment is required to attract investment in value-added processing. Consumer choice and individual needs should be respected (price, locale production method.). * Policy levers, investment strategies and approaches should reflect Canada’s geographical size and terrain, climate, and population diversity. * Adherence to rules-based trade and recognition of global standards significantly increases resiliency of our food systems.236242246249Discussion question 4 -- The Food Systems Summit calls on everyone, everywhere to mobilize towards action. How do we learn from each other? Identify one way that we can work together. * The integrated nature of our food system, as well as inclusiveness and collaboration between actors were common themes. Participants expressed a need for various actors to learn from each other and collaborate on solutions. We are stronger together. * Primary agriculture should adopt a larger food systems perspective and explore opportunities to further engage in food systems conversations to pursue a more integrated and comprehensive approach and understanding. * Build better connections between farmers, markets, and food retailers.237240242243244246249250* Participants recognized the inherent link between environment and trade, and the importance of sustainable production and consumption, but differed on whether sustainability should be embedded into our trade ecosystem and what such an approach would entail given differing approaches and measurement and fear over trade barriers. Preference was noted for a balanced and integrated approach to sustainable agriculture that reflects the unique opportunities and challenges of Canadian agriculture. * Diverging viewpoints on whether farmers are receiving the right signal from government and the market. Farmers need to see the value to their farm, and be financially compensated to account for additional time, cost, and resource burden. Farmers cannot pass on the costs, as they have little to no influence on price. Many of the farmer participants raised the trade-off between regulatory and incentive levers and the importance of transparency and showcasing the value of the proposed approach before deciding on a path forward.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/FSS-Independent-Dialogue-Participant-Guide.pdfhttp://www.ccga.cahttps://pulsecanada.comhttps://advancingfoodsystems.ca/community/

2021-06-04 19:47:40204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/20162/105

3101515423242518447

We invited farmer representatives from LENAFU member associations in the 10 districts of Lesotho. We used the 3 (three) factors to guide to organize invitations to the farmers and these were (1) commodity representatives, (2) gender, and (3) youth. While the type of farming practice is an umbrella factor that guided our groupings, we ensured that there is a balance of gender in the dialogue as well as ensuring that the youth is represented. Further to that, the invited participants came from the three agro ecological zones; Lowlands, Food Hills and Mountains. The meeting was held on the 24th May, and was both in person and virtual. We started with an information session designed to inform/educate and update participants on the background to the UNFSS, its structures and processes. Two key virtual presentations were made by SACAU on background on the UNFSS emphasizing the principles of engagement. This was complemented by a presentation by the FAO Lesotho Resident Representative which summarized the concept of the food system. We first tried a simultaneous translation of the presentations but it could not work well for us. So we opted for direct English presentations in which most of the delegates understood. However, in accord with the core principles of engagement, we followed up on the presentation with a summary translated into Sesotho to level the language barriers amongst the delegates. The second segment was a facilitated discussion in Sesotho where participants raised issues emerging from the SACAU and FAO presentations. In the third segment, the delegates were divided into gender-mixed breakaway groups clustered along commodity lines as follows: Livestock groups - Wool and mohair farmers, dairy farmers, piggery, poultry, apiculture farmers; Cropping Farmers: Cereal crops and horticulture farmers. The first set of questions was along a force field analysis into each group sought to unpack the current state of the food systems in their commodity. The second followed a normative approach to project a futuristic state of a food system they want.First the reflection of urgency and commitment to the United Nations Food System Summit. Farmers were made to understand that they are the primary key players in the agriculture and food production system. They have to be proactive on the production of food and also determinant to respond to the requirements and standards agreed with other players in the food system. The delegates were drawn from a range of farmers associations and collectives across all 10 districts of Lesotho. Farmers dedicated themselves with commitment to the exercise as guided and facilitated by questions. Each group was excited about presenting how they have analyzed their food system underlining urgency of reforms and need for players to commit to the transformation of the food system for each commodity. Farmers appreciated their roles and the roles of other actors in the food system. They understand that they operate in a complex and dynamic environment. They are part of a larger collection of people including other farmers, suppliers, traders, transporters and processors, each of whom has a role to play in the value chain. It was underscored that farmers are faced with many challenges, and they become even more problematic when they are fragmented. As a result, the independent dialogue organized by LENAFU was a mix of farmers from different sectors; livestock, horticulture, field crops and apiculture and the representatives from youth and women clusters that are within LENAFU fraternity. The main focus was to build a joint statement on the food system the farmers want that will ensure profit maximization and bearing the consequences for humans’ health and the environmental safety.The principles of engagement should be regarded as a basic toolkit for the undertaking of the independent dialogue on food system. The conveners have to understand that the food system is not only about the challenges within their scope of work, but it goes beyond that. They have to understand clearly how they interlink with other players in the food system so that they can determine the best and profitable food system that would be useful to all while also ensuring the safety of the environment. We need to all appreciate the urgency of having a well-organized food system so that the world is able to feed the people. It is with our wholehearted commitment that we can improve the availability of desired food quality and quantities at all different levels of the value chain. The dialogue conveners should ensure that the events are organized to build the message that promote collaborations amongst the players and complementarity effect on the efforts of different players in the food system. In order to have meaningful discussions and productive resolutions at the end of the day, our advice is that conveners allocate at least two days to really reflect on the food systems. In the first session, we would dedicate time to workshopping the food systems concept and taking one commodity and dissect it along the food system framework. This step is critical for farmers to appreciate the complexity and inter-linkages in the core elements of the food systems and the performance of the value chains structures and players. The follow up session to that would be a breakaway group session to make a facilitated discussion on commodity grouping and interrogating the current state. Ideally, farmers tend to focus on their problems and challenges not the resolutions or strategies. It takes some skill to take them out of the victim mode and have them analytically break down their current state of food chains and how it is structured, how it functions or performs and the nature of problems and challenges inherent in the status quo. again we need a well-organized facilitator

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246248249251The following guided the dialogue process on our selected commodities for the discussion; (i) Advancing equity, openness, and fairness in the governance of value chains, including in international trade, (ii) Enhancing availability and equitable access to factors of production, (iii) Technological innovations and adaptations, (iv) Investing in the next generation of farmers, (v) Shifting to sustainable and nature positive production, (vi) Priorities for public and development investments Our focus was rolled out into two key steps: The first was to analyze in detail the current state of food systems by commodity in Lesotho. This was a force field analysis of the current state of food systems. 1. This was set to built towards a farmers’ position paper/ statement on the Food system they want covering the following issues: 1.1 Externalization of production processes, to ensure profit maximization by the farmers and bearing the consequences for humans and the environment. In these output, we shall seek to design systems’ structures and functions as they occur in the current real world as the basis on which a positive concept then identifies points of entry for desirable systems’ changes (Positive Approach) Questions for Discussion a) Please outline the structure of the food system for your specific commodity. Who are the players? What are the key nodes in the structure? b) What are the factors limiting production, productivity, profit margins, farm livelihoods and the environment in your commodity? For each factor, please identify entry points for improvement of current systems. ii) How are these factors affecting your production processes? iii) How are these factors affecting productivity? iv) How are these factors affecting profits? v) How are these factors affecting farm livelihoods? vi) How are these factors affecting the environment? 1.2 A normative statement for a Lesotho Food System that farmers want. The statement shall indicate capacity to deliver immediate benefits to farmers and provide a vision for other value chain players. At this level, we shall seek to postulate a set of objectives and aims to shape the systems to serve the stated objectives of a desired food system. Question for Discussion a) Make visionary statement of the Lesotho you want in agriculture. b) What factors will influence your capacity to deliver immediate benefits? c) Provide vision statements of the value chains in your commodity. 1.3 A participatory, systems-oriented innovation concept statement emphasizing capacity strengthening of farmers with particular attention to women and youth empowerment. Here we seek to take a positive approach to improve the existing system structure. Questions for Discussion a) Analyze the situation in your commodity today? b) Where would you want to be in 10 years’ time? c) What factors can derail your vision and dreams for the farmer you want to be? d) What factors can derail your sectoral vision for the sector you want to be? e) What capacity development is needed to keep your sectoral vision on the rails. f) List and discuss any capacity development needs particular to women and youth? 1.4 A statement on the food system or value-chain approach that link farmers and local traders to markets. Questions for Discussion (Force Field Analysis) a) Please project (futurist) a value chain system that links your commodity to local traders and markets nationally? b) What are the constraints in your commodity that limits your participation in local trading and marketing arena in your districts and Lesotho? c) Please make suggestions on how these challenges can be overcome. 1.5 Formation of a loosely structured coalition of farmers and other local stakeholders that facilitate and manage the agricultural innovation process. The objective here is to explore complementarity of the positive and normative approaches in the theory of food systems. Questions for Discussion a) Please design a network structure (s) that can help your commodity association /club and other local stakeholders (consumers, traders) to facilitate and manage the agricultural innovation process in your commodity.235238239240241242243244245246248249251The main finding for all commodity groups point to a food system stuck in a subsistence production node trying hard to make a transition to a semi-commercial /commercial value chain point. Two livestock commodities are a model for all others. These are the wool and mohair on the one hand, and the dairy production on the other. The first is anchored by a National Wool and Mohair Association which dates back to the 1950s when a drive was initiated to improve the breeding and selection of Angora goats and Merino sheep as the mainstay of the wool and mohair industry. The production node is characterized by a collective of smallhoder farmers depending on intensive grazing in the rangeland commons. It has also been supported by government subsidies in terms of veterinary services and supply of drugs. The greatest failure of the wool and mohair industry has been the inability to develop a processing node in Lesotho rather than exporting a raw product. The natural resource dependence of this industry is often blamed for the current environmental problems in the rangelands commons characterized by soil erosion and land degradation. The second is the dairy industry. This also has evolved under promotion of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security over the last 50 years. The mainstay of the food system has been the promotion of Brown Swiss and Freesian dairy breeds and government support of the breeding improvement programs. This is also plagued by dependence on South African fodder supply because the farming systems in Lesotho have failed to fill up the niche for fodder production with investment in the appropriate farm level technologies to drive and support fodder production. There is a decentralized milk aggregation system in the lowland districts with local district town based milk collection centers supplying the milk processing plant in the capital city. The processing plant has a recognized dairy brand, processed as fresh-pasteurized and sour milk products which has successfully penetrated the wholesale and retail chain stores in Lesotho. Despite this moderately strong footprint in the economy, this odd foot system lacks processing diversity into other milk products and is as a whole plugged by the subsistence supply constraints at the production node of the value chain. The third is the poultry industry with two sub-systems of egg and broiler production. This food chain has evolved under a strong support and subsidy of the Government of Lesotho. The performance of this food system has fluctuated significantly since its inception and has experienced its fair share of political and corruption shocks over time. The feed supply supporting system has always been strongly South African although the emergence of the local flour mills provided a strong local investment in animal feeds which continues to the present day albeit strong competition. The chick supply value chain node has also been characterized by lack of investment locally rendering its dependent on import of chicks and/or laying point chickens. In the early days of the egg industry, a national aggregator system emerged in the form of the now defunct Egg Cycle Institution which was a private sector cooperative initiative with decentralized collection and marketing centers throughout Lesotho. At its height, the institution could meet the egg demand of the country to the exclusion of the South African import. It will suffice to day the institution was shocked to extinction by political and corruption forces within the food system. Currently, the marketing node of the egg industry is disorganized at best but still has a strong weak footprint in the local supply chains although the lions share of the local market is dominated by imports. The broiler production, was similarly promoted and supported by the Government. The production node of the value chain in this food system is also characterized by subsistence level production chains from small farms a few hundreds to large farms of 1000s of broilers. The stock supply chain has gone from failed Government attempts to catalyze chicken supply farms to the current system fully dependent on broiler chick imports anchored by local private sector business players playing a middle man role. Local investment drives for chick production in this sub-sector have been tried but success are far outnumbered by failures despite the apparent potential of the industry. This includes attempts at local aggregation through local investment in abattoirs or slaughter houses. The local demand for poultry meat products far outstrips the supply capacity hence a very strong import supply into the country. The crop based sub-systems of the food chain i.e. cereal production and horticulture (vegetables and fruits) reported a consensus that the current state of the food system is rudimentary and undeveloped. It is characterized by subsistence level operations for production with farm gate sales with undeveloped value chains. In horticulture, in particular, the production nodes are characterized by lack of investment in irrigation and protected agriculture initiatives. There is, however, an emerging World Bank supported initiative for fruit production with potential to provide niche production of fruits with a lead time of about two weeks ahead of the South African supply chain. The system was put to a test in the current season and was able to supply high quality apples for a period of three months with import channels closed.236238239240241242243244245246248249251Piggery Development Envisaged Piggery Food System: The Food System Producers want Producers perceive access to agricultural lands as the most important especially because piggery industry requires well-drained sites far from homestead. Production of breeding stock was highlighted imperative since the standards can easily be regulated and breeding material storage be established. The dream is to have stable and sustainable piggery production, through adequate production to meet the demand and supply international markets. The necessary prerequisites should include: established local input supplies, access to financial recourses, continuous technical support from extension service providers, diversification of piggery products to increase income and active participation in formal markets. The importance of having access to proper sites cannot be over emphasized because the piggery industry require proper drainage systems to protect the environment. The voice of the producers with special attention to women and youth must be considered in the formulation of policies, incorporating among others e-extension services and the clientele be empowered to use these ICT platforms. Open trade needs regulation based on local supply levels. 1.1 Current situation There is a growing involvement of women and youth in piggery industry, with the majority operating at subsistence level and only a few smallholder producers participating in the markets. There are limited agricultural competitive grants in the form of projects that have specified tenure, implying that only a few have access to financial aid. Women and youth do not possess land and this stalls up scaling of enterprises and access to credit facilities. Women and youth in piggery enterprises have technical needs such as know-how on executing veterinary operations. 1.2 Visionary statement Active involvement of women and youth to undertake the piggery industry successfully where their voices are heard and have access to the necessary resources needed for an enterprise to be stable and sustainable. There should be equitable distribution of land to women and youth to enable maximized production and participation in the markets. 1.3 Factors that can derail attainment of the vision Policies that are formulated following a top-down supply driven approaches that do not consider the voices of women and children. To keep the sectorial vision on the rail, policy dialogues giving women and youth an opportunity to give opinions. The UN agencies, non-governmental organization's and national farmers’ unions (LENAFU) provide technical support and hold farmers’ forums where farmers can discuss issues in the industry. 1.4 Value chain linkages Breeder------producer-------market (formal and informal) consumer 1.5 Challenges • Low and unsustainable production. • Most producers operate as individuals and cannot meet the market demands. • Absence of a regulatory body of standards. • Lack of skills to produce acceptable products in the markets, and this reflects lack of extension services. 1.6 Solutions • Establishment of agricultural innovation grants to support farmers and easy access to financial resources. • Farmers be organized to work as groups to encourage collective yields that can meet market demands. Out grower contracts that entails sub-contracting of smallholder farmers by developed producers also makes it possible to meet market demands, thus enabling participation in local trading and marketing. • Establishment of an authoritative body to regulate and enforce adherence to standards. • There is a need for frequent monitoring by extension service providers. 1.7 Coalition of Farmers and other Local Stakeholders that Facilitate and Manage the Agricultural Innovation Process A structure that allows interaction among and between all stakeholders using stakeholder forums, group social media, regular meetings.2362382392402412422432442452462482492512. Fruits and Vegetable Development Envisaged Fruits and Vegetables Food System: The Food System Producers want Farmers envisage a food system where research station is actively involved in generating technologies that adapt to the local environment. Reliable input supplies of high quality standards must be ensured. Access to agricultural land must be granted to those who have interest in engaging large scale production at reasonable costs. The need to grow diversification of production should go beyond canning and drying must be overemphasized. Farmers wants to see fruits and vegetable production undertaken in protective structures to protect against harsh environmental conditions. Sensitization of insurance companies to establish agricultural insurance is imperative. Continual and regular trainings to capacitate farmers on upcoming technologies. Ensure use of climate smart agriculture given unending climatic challenges. Organic farming must be rapidly explored as it yields high profits. To ascertain this vision, farmers recommended that adequate budgetary allocations be considered to ensure that research develops, test and adapt technologies and for extension to disseminate and equip farmers with the skills and knowledge to implement the technologies. Formulation of policies that harmonize the operations of different stakeholders to avoid duplication and waste of resources are also necessary. 2.1 Current situation Participation of women and youth in horticulture is relatively lower than that of males and there are no support programmes for women and youth. They are disadvantaged in terms of possession of land resources. 2.2 Visionary statement There should be education and support programmes that are specifically developed for youth and women to enable them to participate in production of fruits and vegetables. Equal access to land as their male counterparts. 2.3 Factors that can derail attainment of the vision Perceptions that horticultural endeavor is more inclined to males given the labor requirements which might explain the lack of interest of women and youth. In order to develop capacity of women, custom-made education and support programmes must be developed to encourage them to participate, these include field days where motivation can be instigated from other women that are already in the industry. Promote equipment that does not require immense manpower. 2.4 Value chain linkages Research and development------Input suppliers-------Primer------production-----Harvesting------aggregation------storage------Packaging--------Distribution------agro processing------Markets and consumers The farmer plays almost every role, as they produce, process and take the products to markets. 2.6 Challenges • Low and unsustainable production hinders the farmer from participating in formal markets as they require reliable and consistent supply. • Lack of farmers’ dialogue sessions to discuss different aspects of a product from farm to folk was considered as a stumbling block towards participation in local trading and marketing. • Farmers are not organized in cooperatives but in silos that hinder them to produce adequate quantities to meet the market demands. • Producers do not meet contract farming agreement requirement due to unreliable supply and lack of bodies that regulate quality standards. • Producers do not have relevant technical and managerial skills consequent to poor extension services to produce quality marketable products. 2.6 Solutions • Introduce frequent producer meetings to discuss different production aspects. • Develop horizontal and horizontal networks that link all players. • Introduce aggregation sector and promote contract farming. • Conduct value chain and skills capacity development trainings. • Conduct farmer buyer forums to pave way for the producer producer-buyer expectations.236238239240241242243244245246248249250251Apiculture Development 3.1 Envisaged Apiculture Food System: The Food System Producers want Farmers dream to have different bee varieties to accumulate as much production and other products as possible. Access to sites that are suitable for bee farming to maximize yields and protect the communities. This will enable increased profits that will support farm livelihoods. The Ministry of Agriculture and Food security should negotiate with financial resource providers to create revolving funds that aid producers to buy modern equipment that support production of high quality and larger quantities. Farmers want to see beekeepers as empowered individuals who can run bee enterprises and compete in local and international markets. All the stakeholders successfully engaged from farm to fork. We need to secure sites that favour the production of different kinds of flowers. Exposure to educational trainings and field tours is much needed to develop the knowledge and skills required for production of bees. Similarly, business skills are also considered important. Local suppliers of the equipment could reduce the heavy costs. 3.2 Current situation Since the industry is still in its primary stage, it is too early to determine the extent to which women and youth participate in this industry. However, women and youth show interest but are discouraged by seasonal profits. 3.3 Visionary statement Farmers envision 60% of women and youth participating in beekeeping as this industry does not require weighty manpower, women and youth would do well. 3.4 Factors that can derail attainment of the vision Lack of knowledge and skills thus, training and exchange visits are imperative. 3.5 Value chain linkages Producer ------- Processor ---------Markets and Consumers 3.6 Challenges and solutions Locally produced honey is not available in the formal markets, as production is still very low and farmers are the ones who determine the selling prices without considering the market prices. Expertise on apiculture is needed.2362382392402412422432442462482492514. Cereal Cropping Development Envisaged Cereal Food System: The Food System Producers want Farmers’ vision embrace increased production of cereals adequate to meet the country’s needs. This will be made possible by local availability of reliable suppliers of quality inputs that are suitable for our soils. Access to land regardless of age and gender is critical as this enables equal participation of all groups in cereal production. A future with farmers that are resilient to vulnerabilities and shocks, and access to contingency funds in such times. Formulation of plans and policies cognisant to the current hindrances is urgent. Adoption of conservation and climate-smart agriculture are recommended to address the challenges brought by climate change must be upheld. 4.1 Current situation Males have landholding rights, while women and youth may have none, posing a challenge to their endeavours in this industry. High unemployment is forcing people to try other means of living that include agriculture, yet the desire of women and youth to tap into cereal production is stalled by lack of access to land, financial, technical skills and knowledge. 4.2 Visionary statement Equal access of all parties to land. Trainings and support tailored for women and youth to flourish in cereal production. Financial aids in the form of loans and grants to support the take-off and expansion of existing enterprises. 4.3 Factors that can derail attainment of the vision Lack of enforcement of land laws as agricultural sites are being given up for residential purposes. Lack of clear contracts on block farming. Land should be given to youth and women who are willing to venture in agricultural activities. 4.4 Value chain linkages Producers recommended that buyer-seller meetings and farmers’ market day are frequently held 4.5 Challenges Low production and quality of produce Lack of continuous open markets available to farmers Lack of education on markets Lack of joint operations by farmers 4.6 Solutions Trainings on participation in markets, technical skills and knowledge. Establishment of open markets for farmers to continually sell their produce. Establishment of commodity groups for collective yields that can meet market demands.236238239240241242243244246248249250251Wool and Mohair Development Envisaged Wool and Mohair Food System: The Food System Producers want First and foremost, producers perceive rangeland improvement very important in the improving of the industry. Thus, all relevant stakeholders must play their role to ensure sustainable rangeland management which will in turn improve productivity of wool and mohair in the country. Supplementary feeding was also highlighted as imperative so that when rangelands did not produce adequately due to several factors such as climate change, animals will still have feeds. They perceive the industry to have knowledgeable and skilled producers with technical backup support regarding fodder production and ration formulation. Farmers also confirmed that it is highly important to have local breeders so that the economy of the country increases. Currently, there are efforts to identify and train some of the progressive farmers to become breeders through WAMPP. There should be a consistent mountain of knowledge and skills to ensure that they produce stock that can compete in international markets so that farmers are not tempted to buy stock from outside the country. Establishment of parastatal premised on sound regulatory and institutional framework to govern wool and mohair activities in the country. Wool, specifically, is the number one agricultural commodity. Thus, government support is necessary for wool and mohair to immensely contribute to the economy of the country. The infrastructural development in woolsheds consistent with international woolsheds infrastructure must be developed. Lesotho has been producing wool and mohair for decades and selling to South Africa through brokers and livestock products marketing services (LPMS). However, there are no wool and mohair brands and this poses a challenge of how wool and mohair fibre can be sold in international markets. 5.1 Current situation Women and youth inclusion or participation in the wool and mohair industry is encouraging as it is roughly estimated at 70:30 for men and women and youth respectively. They still need trainings and exchange visits to progressive women farmers to inspire them to participate in large numbers.   5.2 Visionary statement Farmers envisaged active involvement of women and youth in equal numbers as men, competing in production of good quality wool and mohair. They foresee the industry re-engaging, attracting and maintaining youth particularly to be involved in wool and mohair processing. The sole purpose is to tap on their fresh and diverse mind creativity and innovativeness so to produce new designs of wool and mohair products that can attract international markets 5.3 Factors that can derail attainment of the vision Regulatory and institutional challenges that eventually results in the development of wool and mohair industrial policies and regulations that are silent about the needs of women and youth. Hence, numerous policy dialogue fora must be held where different stakeholders with women and youth at the centre, are brought together to consider how they can work and move together for the success of the industry. 5.4 Value chain linkages Breeder ------ Producer-------Wool and Mohair processors. 5.6 Challenges It was emphasized that wool is number one agricultural commodity in Lesotho, nevertheless, there are no niche markets developed – the country is not strategic regarding which markets to sell wool and mohair products. 5.7 Solutions There is dire need to establish niche markets where national wool and mohair products can competitively sell.236238239240241242243244245246248249251Dairy Development Envisaged Dairy Food System: The Food System Producers want Producers wish to produce good quality milk in adequate quantities to satisfy both local and international market demand, that is, they want to commercialize the dairy industry. Thus, a shift from purchasing feeds must be realized and emphasis be on fodder production as dairy cattle can potentially produce enough milk when crazed on fodder with limited supplementary feeding. Producers also perceive availability of milk collection centre in rural areas essential as that will cut off unnecessary costs and gravitate all the efforts towards improving the production and productivity. At least one processing plant must be established in every town and be independent but ensured that it is guided by and adhere to sound regulations. In an effort to accumulate more value on milk, processing must be diversified. This has proved to meet all customer needs and preferences whilst generating more revenue. Use of modern technology must be exploited especially during milking where producers should consider use of milking machines and Artificial Insemination during breeding. 6.1 Current situation The sub-sector is dominated by men, that is, women and youth are rarely involved in dairy industry. Thus, extension service has a lot of work to do to ensure that women and youth see value in this endeavor. 6.2 Visionary statement Sensitization and mobilization programmes must be pursued to capture women and youth interest and eventually inspire them to take action. The sole purpose should be to see women and youth actively engaged in rearing dairy cattle and earning a living. 6.3 Factors that can derail attainment of the vision Societal perceptions that this endeavour can only survive and be sustainable in the hands of men can cloud and even discourage women and youth to consider taking it. Moreover, the fact that they do not own capital assets such as land, makes it difficult for them to acquire credit for lack of collateral. Thus, awareness campaigns and intensive training by extension services and advocacy by civil societies on inclusion and support for women and youth is essential. 4.1 Value chain linkages Producer------ Aggregators-------Processors---------Markets and Consumers. 4.2 Challenges and solutions The biggest problem that hinders producers to participate in markets is low production which is attributable to high costs of feeds. Hence, it is important that educational programmes on fodder production be held for farmers to empower them.236238239240241242243244245246248249250251Poultry Development Envisaged Piggery Food System: The Food System Producers want The farmers’ desire is to produce enough chicken meat and eggs meeting the demands of the country. This will be made possible by a local hatcheries that supply quality chicks, reliable supply of quality cages and feeding equipment and quality feed for the broilers and layers. Consistent access to water and agricultural sites will enable farmers to meet the standards of rearing, protect the communities against pollution, make expansion of enterprises possible and enable participation in formal markets. Farmers wish for a poultry industry with functional aggregators and abattoirs in all the regions of the country. The guidance of service providers is central as knowledge and skills on proper rearing is of paramount importance. Women and youth are active in this industry and programs that support and capacitate them are much needed. 7.1 Current situation The participation of women and youth in poultry production is noticeable, but they are faced with challenges of food insecurity. Their desire and efforts could use support through trainings, organising them into groups and easy access to land and credit facilities. 7.2 Visionary statement To have an education system that grooms children into agriculture from a tender age, this will instill and encourage youth to be valuable to these enterprises as some still view poultry industry as inappropriate for them. A support system for women and youth who are already in the industry in the form of trainings among others to capacitate them with the necessary skills and knowledge to thrive in poultry production. Farmers envisage a future where women and youth have landholding rights and simplified means of renting or buying land for production. 7.3 Factors that can derail attainment of the vision Lack of training and support programmes to build on the required skills and knowledge to succeed in this enterprise. Policies and regulations that do not allow women and youth to have landholding rights and credit facilities could be another hindrance. Associations are needed for youth and women, to provide a platform where motivation will be drawn from each other, and this makes them easily reachable for trainings and other forms of capacitation. 7.4 Value chain linkages Layers Hatchery ------- Farmers -------- Markets and Consumer Broilers Chick Supplier------Producers-------Distributor-------Processor--------Market Interactions on poultry farming must include the following stakeholders: • Research and development • Policy makers • Private Sector • International Non-government organisations • Extension service providers • Farmers’ associations 7.5 Challenges • Lack of knowledge and skills on production • Poor quality and low quantity of produce needed in the markets • Lack of corporation within poultry farmers, as this would empower them to meet the demands of the market. 7.8 Solutions • Organising farmers to work collectively to meet the market demand. • Continuous and frequent trainings on bookkeeping, technical skills and knowledge for poultry production. • Financial aids for farmers in the form of loans and grants. • Establishment of an agricultural bank to meet the farmers’ financial needs.237238239240241242243244245246248249251There was a near total convergence of thoughts and analysis in terms of the food systems as they exist now and already summarized above. We, however, recommend that a series of focused commodity based workshops held amongst the farmers and with other actors in the food systems. This will allow the relevant stakeholders to discuss issues pertaining to the development of the food system they all want. While these may be implemented on frequent bases, the results would be a solid view and resolution by the stakeholders on the food system they want that is perceived to be profitable for all and also addressing issues of environmental safety. Under the current arrangement where we tried to extract this issues through simultaneous group discussions in at least seven sub-groups, the kind of focus herein probed was not possible within that short period of time.

2021-06-05 21:52:38204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/6508/203

5714289111451213611611714111621910

“Healthier Islands through Sustainable Food Systems: Food as Medicine'' is the second of a two-part dialogue series organized by four partners: 1) Hawai‘i Public Health Institute; 2) City and County of Honolulu- Office of Climate Change, Sustainability and Resiliency; 3) Hawai‘i Pacific University - Department of Public Health, and 4) University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa - Native Hawaiian and Indigenous Health, Office of Public Health Studies. This core group consists of members representing different fields. These organizations made a commitment to participate in the UN Food Systems Summit through a memorandum of understanding and to build trust. Prior to the Independent Dialogues, a state-wide round table discussion was held on March 31, 2021 which was entitled “Our Health, Our Food Systems, Our Islands, Our People”with the intent to create a process for introducing the UN Food Systems Summit to Hawai‘i. Through this initial event, the organizers developed a better understanding of the complexity of food systems and the need to accommodate a wide range of participants representing different sectors. Subsequently, the Independent Dialogues brought to the table participants working on governance, food systems, agriculture, aquaculture, culinary art, culture, indigenous and ancient knowledge and practice, among others. Participants in this second dialogue included resource persons from Hawai‘i, New Zealand, Puerto Rico, Tonga and the Virgin Islands.To show respect to all those engaged, the core group reached out to participants and speakers on a personal basis and had conversations around the dialogue and its purpose. Inclusivity was one of the most important aspects of developing the dialogue topics and inviting participants.The Independent Dialogues on ‘Healthier Islands through Sustainable Food Systems: Food as medicine” exemplifies acting with urgency as the organizers were able to mobilize speakers and participants in a short period of time. A briefing on the UN Food Systems Summit by the curator at the opening of the meeting, provided a context for the Independent Dialogue in relation to global challenges and action and commitment to the summit as a vehicle for engagement with all possible stakeholders, particularly stakeholders in island food systems. Participants in the dialogue reflected multisectoriality by including farmers, teachers, advocates, community champions, policy-makers, project managers, health professionals, lawyers, urban planners and indigenous peoples. Throughout the dialogue, participants were encouraged to share their thoughts and sentiments. Breakout groups were small, enabling more time for participants to share their views. This created a respectful environment where everyone's voices could be heard.Participation in the global orientation and training for convenors, curators, and facilitators was very useful in appreciating the principles of engagement and the potential impact of linked and interconnected efforts on food systems change. Having a core group that represents different fields of expertise is extremely useful in identifying the right participants and speakers. Forward looking statements need to be agreed upon and framed in a way that encourages engagement of a wide range of stakeholders. The UNFSS dialogue manual was very helpful in the development of some of the framing questions that were used to focus the discussions. To create a respectful environment, it is critical that facilitators are prepared and trained to handle different situations during the dialogue. The use of a short video in the plenary enabled participants to grasp the complexity and far-reaching impacts of a food system. Sending out information to registrants prior to the dialogue session helped to inform participants prior for the event and prepare them for a productive event. Putting photographs of the speakers on the invitation is helpful. Given this was a global virtual setting, anticipating any technical challenges beforehand ensured smooth execution of the event.

Yes

234238239243244246247248249Healthier islands through sustainable food systems seeks to underscore the convergence of food systems, public health and nutrition through the forward looking statement: ‘Food as medicine’, as a core strategy for healthier islands through sustainable food systems is a holistic approach to the prevention and control of non communicable diseases like diabetes and risk factors like hypertension and obesity --- as environmental modifications focus on food as a solution and not a cause of ill-health by ensuring that all people in all islands have access to healthier, affordable and locally produced and gathered food from sustainable resources. Unhealthy diets are the leading risk factor for death in many countries of the world. The island populations of the world have the highest rates of noncommunicable disease (NCD), premature death and disability (e.g. strokes, amputations) from conditions like diabetes, hypertension and obesity. Among the underlying drivers of the NCD epidemic, unhealthy diets have the greatest contribution to risk for poor population health outcomes in islands. Overconsumption of unhealthy food is underpinned by food systems that make processed food (e.g. canned, packed, preserved) that are high in salt, sugar and trans fats as well as “fast food” -- convenient, inexpensive and easy to access. At the same time historical and structural drivers (e.g. colonization, militarization, urbanization) have displaced small and indigenous farmers and made production of local food from the land and sourced from the sea expensive and difficult to access. Westernization of the diet in islands is exacerbated by aggressive marketing of unhealthy food and easy availability of snacks and other food products that provide high caloric content but low nutritive value as well as an acquired taste for Western food that negates ancestral heritage and indigenous knowledge about "eating for health". This situation is related to trade policies, hence islands are in a dire situation where “We grow what we do not eat, and eat what we do not grow”. Changing the narrative around the notion of health and the relationship of food systems to population health is of critical importance. We define “health” as not just what is physical, but it includes the mental, social and spiritual dimensions of being. “Eating for health” therefore, is about food that meets the nutritional needs of the body, but also reinforces the “connectedness” of our sustenance to the land, the sea and the seasons. “We are what we eat” - articulates a holistic view of culture and identity in relation to a holistic view of food. Access to “natural” or “ancestral food” is inextricably linked to healing and recovery, especially when one is “unwell”. Eating what is locally produced entails “being comfortable in our own skin” and intuitively leads to balance. In some Pacific islands, people are insulted when taught what to eat. Eating is a natural process and should not be taught. It is important to understand the “natural context” of eating a healthy diet or “healthy eating” as an interaction between human beings in a social and ecological environment where nourishment can come from what is grown and gathered in one’s surroundings. There is a need to reassess the ecological resources for providing food within islands to include not just agriculture but aquaculture and the use of other resources like seaweed. Re-educating families, schools and communities about the benefits of producing and consuming local food is an uphill battle in the face of aggressive marketing and advertising of processed food. Educational institutions play a big role in ensuring that the youth experience food production as a part of learning science and culture. Tourism, the hospitality sector and the culinary arts are stakeholders and partners in promoting local food. Community leadership in shifting consumption to healthier diets is key.235238239243244246247248249251Why we need to act urgently Unhealthy diets and food insecurity are urgent and serious threats to health and survival to more than 63 million people who live on islands.. There are significant data gaps in knowledge about unhealthy diets and food insecurity in island populations.It has been difficult to characterize dietary intake in islands due to research biases in dietary assessment of locally consumed food. Islands have been excluded from the determination of the nutritive content of indigenous food. The US Dietary Guidelines do not contain commonly found food in islands (e.g. “ulu” (breadfruit), jackfruit, sugar apples, “Jacks” (small fish), cassava). The guidelines affect how health advice is given to patients, how institutions purchase food and design meal plans, and how families are fed during emergencies. The Mediterranean diet and DASH have been cited as guidance. A Pacific food guide with 3 food groups - which is more typical of how Pacific Islanders think about the food: proteins, vitamins and minerals and staple food is available http://manoa.hawaii.edu/ctahr/pacificfoodguide/index.php/about-the-guide/ However, this is not widely understood, adopted in a systematic way. Community needs assessments on food security are needed in all islands to enable prioritization of groups at highest risk. What we need to do together Advocates for public health and sustainable island food systems of the world need to demand that research funds flow toward expanding the knowledge base on island diets and the assessment of the nutritive value of local produce. Otherwise, institutional procurement of food (e.g. in schools) will continue to be predominantly imported food items, creating a vicious cycle of dependence and preference for imported food. To shift to healthier diets, communities need to be in charge. Decision-makers need to listen to communities and understand their challenges. Top down approaches alone are not effective. It is important to have a “together approach” - working from the ground up and from the top downward. Restaurants and the food industry influence what people eat and many establishments are shifting to healthier menus. Chefs have a strategic role in popularization of locally grown products through satisfying dishes. Agro-tourism can be a strategy to stimulate local production of food. Action is needed to counteract easy access to cheap and unhealthy snacks and excessive consumption of fast food. Policies that restrict access to unhealthy food might include zoning to regulate fast food locations, taxation and other fiscal measures that impact both on supply and demand. How we will do it Comprehensive approaches/strategies that engage multiple sectors (i.e. health, education, health insurance companies, nutrition, culinary art, hospitality, tourism, producers, retailers) are essential to changing consumption patterns. A research network and centralized data center among island states, territories and jurisdictions is needed to identify and fill knowledge gaps that inhibit policy and programs for food equity ACTION POINT: Establish a multi-centered research initiative involving all island food system stakeholders to assess nutritional content and pricing of local food as an urgent public health measure. Preserve and transmit indigenous and ancestral knowledge and practice in food production by including this in the school curriculum and make it a requirement for graduation. Food production can be an effective way to teach science and culture in a practical way. ACTION POINT: Prioritize the opening of funding tracks to support new educational programs for all youth on food production that links science and culture education. Tourism and the hospitality sector can play a positive role in making healthier diets easier to access. Policies and campaigns to promote local produce can become part of tourism promotion. ACTION POINT: Engage with the tourism sector at global, regional and local levels (e.g. hospitality sector, airlines) to market the local tastes and flavors of indigenous food as part of tourism promotion. “Produce prescription” should be part of the standard of care, covered by health insurance other health financing modalities as a therapeutic model for the prevention, management and control of noncommunicable conditions such as diabetes, hypertension and obesity. ACTION POINT: Establish a global, national and regional network of public health institutions committed to developing guidance on the use of “produce prescription” as a non-pharmacological and community-based intervention that is universally available to communities at risk for NCDs. The medical and public health sector should support advocacy for food sovereignty in all islands in order to achieve better population health outcomes, particularly among farming and fishing communities. ACTION POINT: Create global, national and local coalitions of medical and public health practitioners that will champion transformation of food systems as a strategy to prevent and control NCDs and develop strategies to address the health and nutrition needs of farmers, fisherfolk and other producers. Who the key actors are Food distributors Health workers who provide produce prescription Political leaders Chefs Medical professionals Consumer groups News organizations and media Community leaders Cultural practitioners Tourism sector and organizations Researchers on aquaculture and seaweeds236238239243244245246247248249Health advocates should support food sovereignty of islands, as an intervention to address the epidemic of noncommunicable disease. New coalitions, alliances and networks of health professionals committed to food systems change would be a good indicator of progress Give farmers back their land. Address colonization, militarization, land conversion and urban sprawl. Land ownership and access are difficult issues that require legislative and executive action as supported by communities. Good baseline indicators of marginalized farmers is necessary to set targets. Support should be provided to small and indigenous farmers and fisherfolk by providing opportunities to expand production through financial and technical assistance. National, state and local policy and decision-makers have to move local food production higher in the political agenda and link it to health outcomes, preventable death and social costs. Change the narrative around noncommunicable disease and instead of blaming individuals, address the underlying causes of health disparities, such as the food system as a determinant of health. Public health should focus on social determinants of unhealthy diets and undertake research involving communities to immediately respond to ill-health caused by the food system. Use family-centered approaches within communities to address unhealthy diets. Food prescriptions or produce prescriptions should be expanded as the standard of care for a therapeutic model for noncommunicable diseases and conditions. Community health workers can play an important role in non-pharmacological interventions for better health by enabling communities to grow their own food and consume more fresh produce from land and sea. Current food systems destroy the “connectedness” of people to the land and sea that sustains them. The dominant food culture reinforces the expectation that all food should be available all year round. Seasonality of food is a traditional concept that reminds people that they are part of a larger ecological system that sustains life. At the highest level of governance of islands, campaigns should be mounted to "eat local", "grow and gather local" and "eat healthy" within the context of indigenous wisdom and cultural heritage. Nutrition and healthy diets through sustainable and resilient food systems is the ultimate form of prevention of noncommunicable disease. Public health institutions must include this in their curriculum. Designate national farm lands, in the same way that national parks are designated to protect these. High level decisions need to be made about land use and land use policy to cover the long term impacts of mono-cropping and loss of biodiversity. Communities can manage "endangered agricultural land" by using ancestral knowledge and practice. Research on healthy diets need to be inclusive and useful to the communities. It is of critical importance to engage communities in meeting the gaps in data. Community assessments of needs in relation to availability of food and alternative ways of providing for nutritional needs of various age groups. Economic and financial planners should redirect tourism strategies toward promoting local food production and providing tourists opportunities to eat local food. Agritourism is a viable approach. Organize local food festivals. Shine a spotlight on delicacies and special foods of a region. The education sector needs to be provided with financial support and capacity to educate the next generation in food production and food security as a matter of human survival. Courses need to be developed, teachers equipped and students provided with opportunities to explore how culture, science and values intersect in the field of food production. Use social network analysis and a social constructivist approach to understand how stakeholders are invested and use this to mobilize different sectors toward policy and act Counteract aggressive marketing and promotion through regulations like zoning of locations of fast food establishments, taxation of harmful products, product labelling among others.237238239246247How can islands leverage trade policies? They do not have the economies of scale to negotiate. Colonization and militarization of islands is a continuing policy. How can this be addressed?

2021-06-07 01:30:02205Stage 1https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/23728/95

1057530101525151030153025510515

NoIn the Japan National Food Systems Dialogue with Food-Tech Companies cohosted by MAFF and OECD held on 14th April 2021, following the presentation by OECD on the new report, “Making Better Policies for Food Systems,” and a question and answer session, MAFF described its activities related to the UN Food Systems Summit. Then, Japanese food tech companies explained how their research and innovations were contributing to realizing sustainable food systems across the different dimensions such as food security and nutrition, livelihoods, and environmental sustainability. Lastly, the dialogue was closed with a panel discussion amongst all presenters along with a representative from the World Food Program.

234238239240241242244245248249In this dialogue, we discussed challenges and opportunities especially related to all Action Tracks.235238239240241242244245248249The dialogue was held for the members of the Public-Private Conference on Food Technology under the theme of "How food tech can contribute to realizing a sustainable food system." The main remarks from each panelist are as follows: - The OECD explained the importance of adopting mix policy instruments, R & D investment, etc., rather than taking a single-means policy. - According to a report from Ainan Liberacio Co. Ltd., they found effectiveness of insects such as promoting the growth, improving immunity of cultured fish, and high temperature resistance giving to the insects. The company succeeded in developing an insect-containing feed that is beyond the substitute protein in their functions. - The Center for Rule-making Strategy at Tama University reported that it would be significant for Japan to take the initiative in rulemaking in the field of cellular agriculture against the background of information dissemination and technologies concerning Japanese diverse food culture including wagyu beef. - In the panel discussion, the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) mentioned that world food problems relate to not only developing countries but also developed countries. For solving these problems, it is necessary to provide food assistance including from the agricultural sector and accelerate investments into new technologies that can improve food systems. It also emphasized the necessity of collaboration between international organizations such as the WFP, national governments and private sectors. Confirmed in the panel discussion as follows: 1. The food technology, a new method of food supply, be expected to reduce the environmental burden, 2. We should actively promote investments into the field of food technologies, 3. The early rule making is important for investment. It was also confirmed that we would be making a proposal to the UN Food Systems Summit about accelerating investments into innovation in the agricultural sector toward ensuring global food security.

2021-06-07 01:45:11205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/23739/95

149514311

NoIn the Japan National Food Systems Dialogue with Hokkaido, Yamanashi, Aichi and Tokushima Prefectural Governments held on 28th April 2021, MAFF explained the outline of FSS including the purpose and the key issues of sustainable food system. Then, participants from the local governments introduced their efforts on transforming food systems of each prefecture and achieving SDGs, followed by exchange of opinions.

234238239240241242244248249In this dialogue, we discussed challenges and opportunities related to all Action Tracks.235238239240241242244248249The dialogue with Hokkaido, Yamanashi, Aichi and Tokushima Prefectural Governments was held to exchange opinions related to SDGs and sustainable food systems. Please see the attached file for details of discussions.

2021-06-07 10:32:40204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/6354/172

221183715222335567522

Para asumir los compromisos de la Cumbre, el Diálogo se ha organizado con una perspectiva multistakeholder con el objetivo de dar la oportunidad a los diferentes grupos de interés involucrados de reflexionar y debatir sobre los retos que existen actualmente en los sistemas agroalimentarios a nivel mundial y las posibles palancas para hacerles frente. Así, han participado representantes de grandes multinacionales, de compañías del sector agroalimentario, así como del sector retail a nivel nacional (Bayer, Heineken, Nestlé, Cerealto Siro Foods, Ebro Foods, El Corte Inglés, Grupo Calvo, Mercadona y Pascual), miembros de Organizaciones no Gubernamentales (Ayuda en Acción, Fairtrade y World Vision), representantes de la administración pública española (Ministerio de Agricultura y el Embajador en misión especial para la seguridad alimentaria), entre otros. Durante todo el diálogo, se preservó una actitud respetuosa y de escucha activa por parte de todos los participantes y se promovió un debate abierto en el que todos los miembros estaban invitados a aportar su visión y perspectiva en todo momento. Además, se generó un espacio de confianza explicando a todos los participantes la importancia de los Diálogos independientes, las diferentes Vías de Acción y la utilidad de sus aportaciones de cara a la Cumbre sobre los Sistemas Alimentarios.Durante el Diálogo se hizo especial hincapié en el sentido de urgencia a la hora de transformar los sistemas agroalimentarios para hacerlos más sostenibles a largo plazo y en el carácter esencial de las alianzas y la colaboración entre todos los grupos de interés para lograr ese objetivo tan ambicioso. Todos los participantes reconocieron la gran complejidad de las cadenas de valor del sistema agroalimentario y la necesidad de desarrollar herramientas y enfoques específicos para involucrar a los diferentes actores, desde las grandes empresas del sector privado hasta los pequeños productores de comunidades rurales. Gracias a la variedad de los participantes, se expusieron perspectivas muy relevantes y complementarias pudiendo conectar a los diferentes grupos de interés clave y abogar por combinar el liderazgo de las compañías, de las organizaciones de productores, de la sociedad civil y los incentivos y regulaciones desde lo público.Al organizar un Diálogo, es esencial asegurar una diversidad suficiente de grupos de interés para garantizar que se comparten puntos de vista y perspectivas diferentes que puedan enriquecer el debate y la reflexión. También es necesario reconocer la complejidad de los sistemas agroalimentarios, principalmente de las cadenas de valor, que se distinguen de otras industrias cuyas cadenas son más lineales y menos complejas. El reconocer esta complejidad favorece el que los participantes tengan menos reparo a la hora de compartir sus retos y barreras en el avance hacia esa mayor sostenibilidad y por consiguiente enriquece la reflexión conjunta y el intercambio de buenas prácticas.

Yes

234238239240241242244246248249El tema principal del Diálogo fue una reflexión holística sobre la sostenibilidad de los sistemas agroalimentarios en el largo plazo, analizando particularmente los retos y posibles soluciones a futuro desde la perspectiva pública y privada, así como del tercer sector. Se contó con la presencia de grandes empresas multinacionales y nacionales (Bayer, Heineken, Nestlé, Cerealto Siro Foods, Ebro Foods, El Corte Inglés, Grupo Calvo, Mercadona y Pascual), organizaciones del tercer sector (Ayuda en Acción, Fairtrade y World Vision) y representantes del Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación y del Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores, Unión Europea y Cooperación; todo moderado por Forética. En primer lugar, para sentar las bases del diálogo, se partió de una base de contexto en la que todos los actores reconocieron la urgencia y la necesidad de transformación de los sistemas agroalimentarios. El aumento exponencial de la población mundial, el impacto de los sistemas agroalimentarios sobre la biodiversidad y los ecosistemas, la fragilidad del mundo rural y las desigualdades que perjudican a los pequeños agricultores y a las comunidades más desfavorecidas, hacen cada vez más necesaria la transformación de los sistemas agroalimentarios para asegurar un sistema regenerativo y equitativo que permita producir alimentos saludables, seguros, nutritivos y accesibles para todos. En una segunda parte, 3 grandes empresas vinculadas con el sector agroalimentario pudieron exponer su visión, estrategia y buenas prácticas para hacer frente a esa transformación inminente, así como compartir los retos y soluciones que consideraban a futuro. Así, en primer lugar, BAYER partió de la urgencia de proveer alimentos a una población mundial en constante auge para enmarcar su compromiso con la sostenibilidad a todos los niveles. Se puso de manifiesto el papel de la innovación y de la tecnología como herramientas clave para garantizar las necesidades de casi 10 mil millones de personas en 2050. En efecto, tanto la innovación -asegurando nuevas variedades agrícolas más productivas y resistentes a los cambios climáticos-, como la digitalización -ayudando a los agricultores a optimizar sus recursos monitoreando la variabilidad y las necesidades de sus explotaciones-, constituyen dos de los principales ejes estratégicos para la consecución de los compromisos de sostenibilidad de la compañía. Asimismo, se recalcó la urgencia de colaboración, tanto a lo largo de la cadena de valor para favorecer la reducción de emisiones como por medio de alianzas público-privadas que permitan escalar las soluciones. En segundo lugar, HEINEKEN hizo hincapié en la relevancia de la agricultura sostenible como palanca para mejorar la sostenibilidad de los sistemas agroalimentarios; una agricultura sostenible tanto desde un punto de vista ambiental como social, con una visión holística que abarque todos los grupos de interés implicados a lo largo de la cadena de valor. Se resaltó la importancia de la compra local para impactar positivamente en las comunidades (mejora de las condiciones laborales, protección de los ecosistemas, etc.) así como de la colaboración a lo largo de la cadena de valor para alcanzar más rápidamente la reducción de emisiones de carbono ya que las emisiones indirectas provenientes de la agricultura pueden representar casi 1/3 de las emisiones de una empresa productora del sector agroalimentario. Finalmente, NESTLÉ también recalcó todo lo mencionado anteriormente, destacando especialmente la importancia de la agricultura regenerativa a gran escala para asegurar un impacto positivo (y no solo evitar el negativo) sobre los recursos naturales. La colaboración con los actores de la cadena, en particular las alianzas con proveedores para que se alíen en esta promoción de la agricultura regenerativa, supone un aspecto crucial para reducir el potencial impacto ambiental negativo y promover unos sistemas agroalimentarios más sostenibles en el largo plazo. La compañía también mostró un compromiso con la transformación de su cartera de productos para hacerlos más sostenibles y con menor impacto sobre los ecosistemas (más proteína vegetal, gamas neutras en CO2..)235238239241243245246247248249La base del Diálogo se centró mayoritariamente en los grandes retos que existen hoy en día en ese camino hacia la sostenibilidad de los sistemas agroalimentarios. Sin embargo, se subrayó el hecho de que esa transformación ya se ha iniciado, mostrando cierto paralelismo con la transformación que hoy en día están sufriendo ya, a un ritmo más acelerado, otros sectores como el sector energético o el de la movilidad, sin duda por su alto impacto en la lucha contra el cambio climático. Por consiguiente, el objetivo debe ser posicionar la relevancia de la transformación del sistema agroalimentario al mismo nivel en la agenda política mundial para aunar esfuerzos y acelerar la transición. Así, durante el Diálogo, salieron a la luz grandes retos y barreras que se analizaron desde las diferentes perspectivas de los participantes. En particular, las aportaciones de la ONG Ayuda en Acción, basadas en los resultados del informe "Global Hunger Index" fueron especialmente relevantes a la hora de poner de manifiesto estos grandes desafíos. - Problemas de malnutrición: quizás el reto más visible en cuanto a la sostenibilidad de los sistemas agroalimentarios sea la falta de acceso a alimentos de calidad por una gran parte de la población mundial. Además, las más altas tasas de desnutrición y de hambre se dan sobre todo en el ámbito rural, aun y cuando es ahí donde viven los pequeños agricultores que aseguran más del 50% de la producción mundial de alimentos; una contradicción muy vinculada con el siguiente reto. - Desequilibrio de los sistemas agroalimentarios: este desequilibrio perjudica mayoritariamente a las comunidades más desfavorecidas y vulnerables, tanto a escala global como nacional. Por un lado, los países de renta baja y media dependen cada vez más de las importaciones de alimentos baratos contra los que los agricultores nacionales no pueden competir y que por consiguiente ven su papel fragilizado en las cadenas de valor. Por otro lado, incluso en los países más desarrollados, la proliferación de alimentos muy baratos y ultra procesados que en la mayoría de los casos no son saludables, constituye la fuente de alimentación preponderante para muchos colectivos de bajos recursos y vulnerables. - Fragilidad de las comunidades rurales y de los pequeños productores: aunque estos colectivos aseguren la más de la mitad de los alimentos a nivel mundial (y hasta el 80% en algunas zonas), también representan el eslabón más débil de la cadena de valor agroalimentaria. En muchos países donde carecen de sistemas de protección, estos pequeños productores están muy expuestos a las fluctuaciones del precio de alimentos, a menudo generadas por crisis externas (cambio climático, conflictos regionales, crisis sanitaria, etc.) a las que no pueden hacer frente. - Resistencia al cambio: existen fuertes retos culturales, tanto por parte de los consumidores como por parte de los agricultores. En primer lugar, desde la perspectiva del consumidor, es necesario una mayor concienciación y sensibilización para cambiar unos patrones de consumo y fomentar un consumo más sostenible pero también para reducir el desperdicio alimentario. Por otro lado, con respecto a los agricultores, el carácter "tradicional" del sector hace que existan grandes resistencias a cambiar los sistemas de cultivos tradicionales y se observa a menudo una cierta reticencia ante el uso de nuevas técnicas y soluciones innovadoras. - Complejidad de las cadenas de valor: el sistema agroalimentario no se puede reducir a un simple sistema lineal de inputs / outputs; se caracteriza por una gran complejidad y variedad de actores de naturalezas muy diferentes y por consiguiente no puede existir un único enfoque para apoyar al sector privado en la transición hacia una mayor sostenibilidad. En particular, el desigual acceso a nuevas tecnologías genera un gran reto en términos de trazabilidad y control a lo largo de la cadena de suministro ya que muchos pequeños productores no tienen acceso a la tecnología necesaria que les pueden requerir sus clientes para reportar su desempeño en materia de eficiencia energética, generación de emisiones, gestión de recursos, entre otros. Por consiguiente, es necesario tener en cuenta la idiosincrasia de las diferentes cadenas de valor y de sus actores clave a la hora de establecer objetivos y requisitos por parte del sector público. - Falta de alineación con las administraciones públicas: algunos participantes resaltaron la descoordinación que se manifiesta en ciertos casos entre las exigencias y expectativas de las administraciones y la realidad del sector privado. En particular, se mencionó el desajuste que existe en España entre la necesidad de reducir el desperdicio alimentario en línea con la ambición de incrementar la sostenibilidad del sistema y las barreras fiscales que obstaculizan hoy en día las iniciativas de donaciones de productos.236238239241245246247248249A lo largo del Diálogo, los participantes realizaron aportaciones muy valiosas sobre las posibles soluciones y palancas que permitirían hacer frente a los retos identificados y avanzar hacia unos sistemas agroalimentarios más sostenibles. A continuación, se presentan las más relevantes y las que tuvieron un mayor consenso. - La innovación y la tecnología como grandes aliados. Todos los participantes recalcaron su importancia durante el debate y es que, en efecto, la innovación será clave a futuro para asegurar unos cultivos más eficientes y productivos, que a la vez sean más resistentes y seguros. Para ello, es esencial fomentar las iniciativas de I+D que permitan desarrollar este tipo de cultivos a un precio asequible para los pequeños productores. Por otro lado, la digitalización y la escalabilidad de las soluciones tecnológicas a lo largo de la cadena de suministro representan una gran oportunidad, tanto en términos de optimización de recursos naturales como en términos de trazabilidad, fiabilidad de datos y colaboración. - Una mayor gobernanza global. Por un lado, desde la perspectiva pública, se comentó la necesidad de posicionar la relevancia de la transformación de los sistemas agroalimentarios a un nivel más significativo en la agenda política mundial. En este sentido, la Gobernanza a nivel global aparece como un elemento crucial a la hora de reducir los desequilibrios del sistema y evitar las diferencias de competitividad que pueden existir en función de los sistemas productivos y del lugar de proveniencia de las compañías. Según el punto de vista del Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores, Unión Europea y Cooperación, un primer paso hacia una transformación más rápida y eficaz sería la asunción, por parte de todos los actores del sistema, de las Directrices Voluntarias sobre la Gobernanza responsable de la tenencia de la tierra y de los recursos - promulgadas por la FAO -, que encauzan las prácticas responsables y sostenibles para garantizar la seguridad alimentaria. Por otro lado, desde la perspectiva del tercer sector, se necesitaría un cambio de paradigma en el enfoque de la gobernanza de los sistemas agroalimentarios; hoy en día más enfocada a la comercialización de los alimentos que a una alimentación de calidad para las personas. Este cambio pasaría por una mayor implicación de los pequeños productores, pero también a través de la colaboración entre todos los actores de la cadena de valor. - Foco en los pequeños productores. Durante todo el Diálogo, se hizo mucho hincapié en el carácter central de los pequeños productores, agentes clave del sistema agroalimentario pero que sin embargo se encuentran en el eslabón más vulnerable de la cadena. Por consiguiente, tanto desde la perspectiva pública como privada, incluyendo al tercer sector, se recalcó la importancia de regenerar y de articular el medio rural, reforzando precisamente a los actores que estructuran ese medio, es decir, la agricultura familiar a pequeña y mediana escala. La sostenibilidad de los sistemas agroalimentarios está intrínsecamente vinculada con el empoderamiento y la mejora de las condiciones de los pequeños productores y tanto desde las administraciones públicas como desde las empresas, ese objetivo tiene que ser una prioridad. - Trabajo en alianzas. Todas estas palancas y soluciones no podrán ser alcanzadas sin una colaboración entre todos los actores de los sistemas agroalimentarios. Hay una gran oportunidad y potencialidad no solo en la colaboración público-privada sino también entre las empresas, la sociedad civil, las autoridades locales, etc. Por parte de la administración pública, se reconoció la necesidad de desarrollar mayores incentivos como puede ser una fiscalidad diferenciada, una prioridad en la compra pública o marcos regulatorios más y mejor definidos que permitan avanzar hacia una mayor sostenibilidad. Además, desde la perspectiva privada, la colaboración con todos los actores de la cadena (consumidores, proveedores, agricultores, etc.) apareció como un aspecto crucial a la hora de ver reflejados los esfuerzos para integrar la sostenibilidad.237No hubo áreas de divergencia durante el Diálogo; todos los participantes estuvieron alineados en cuanto a los retos que supone el avance hacia unos sistemas agroalimentarios más sostenibles así como con respecto a las palancas y posibles soluciones.

2021-06-07 13:37:20205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/14580/33

39904826880201502490102830260376401415211941223111110286121212690382905052

The Brazilian National Dialogue was organized by the Ministry of External Affairs (MRE) with active participation from different ministries of the federal government that are responsible for the main subject areas related to food systems policy, with special consideration to specific characteristics of the Brazilian situation and national legislation on Food and Nutrition Security. The Ministry of External Affairs was responsible for convening the dialogue. The Ministry of Citizenship (MC); the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply (MAPA); the Ministry of Health (MS); the Ministry of the Environment (MMA) and the Advisory Counsel of the Chief of Staff of the Presidency (Casa Civil) were key partners in the National Dialogue. The Ministry of Education (MEC) – mostly through the National Foundation for the Development of Education (FNDE), which is the responsible area for the National School Feeding Program (PNAE) – and the Office of the UN in Brasília were also important partners. Brazil opted to conduct a multi-stakeholder process for the National Dialogue, in order to encompass the various unique perspectives each area can contribute to the discussion. Such multi-stakeholder approach was reflected in the composition of participants in the National Dialogue, which benefited from different actors involved with food systems, varying from civil society to producers’ associations, from small informal institutions to large international companies. The government created a dedicated website to disseminate information about the National Dialogue and the Food Systems Summit, including reference documents. Regular and periodic announcements about the Dialogue were transmitted through social media. Inscription for the National Dialogue was made through an on-line form, that was available in the dedicated website for about 10 days. The video-conference was held through Zoom and transmitted by YouTube and Facebook for the wider public. The digital file of the video-conference can be accessed in the dedicated digital platform of the National Dialogue.Brazil chose to convene a dialogue that was as open and inclusive as possible. Taking into consideration time constraints and the epidemiological situation due to the COVID-19 pandemic in the country, the Brazilian National Dialogue was conducted in a 100% virtual mode, through video-conferences. The video-conferences dealt with specific Action Tracks of the Food Systems Summit. The first video-conference (“Promoting Food and Nutrition Security Guaranteeing Equitable Inclusion in the Value Chain”) was held on May 10th 2021 and was focused on Action Tracks 1 and 4. The second video-conference (“Incentivizing a Sustainable Production and Consumption of Health Food”) happened on May 12th 2021 and addressed Action Tracks 2 and 3. The third video-conference (“Building Resilient Food Systems”) took place on May 14th 2021 and was based on Action Track 5. The video-conferences were open and inclusive spaces for debate and sharing of ideas. After the opening address, panelists from government, the private sector and civil society made presentations about the main issues under discussion in Action Tracks 1 and 4. Registered participants were invited to intervene orally during the event. Participants that were not registered to take the floor were invited to send written comments via a dedicated e-mail address to MRE, related to the topics discussed in each video-conference. The combination of oral and written inputs from different stakeholders was important as it reflected a variety of views about the Brazilian Food System and the Food System Summit. A number of useful suggestions were presented and reflected in the video-conference report.In view of the limited time available before the Summit, multi-stakeholder dialogues through digital platforms allow for wide participation of different segments of the society, productive sector, academia and the government. Such format is consistent with Principles of Engagement and offer an opportunity for dialogue with diverse actors.

NoTaking into consideration time constraints and the epidemiological situation due to the COVID-19 pandemic in the country, some of the recommendations in the Convenors Reference Manual had to be adapted and revised. Instead of thematic discussion groups, the Brazilian National Dialogue was crosscutting, including all sectors relevant to the Food Systems Summit debate. The National Dialogue was conducted in a 100% virtual mode, through video-conferences, and transmitted by YouTube and Facebook in order to reach wider audiences. In this context, regional meetings were deemed unnecessary, since participants from different localities were able to access and participate of the video-conferences. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs was responsible for convening and curating the Brazilian National Dialogue. The organization of the dialogue, benefited from the active participation from different areas of the federal government that are responsible for the main subject areas related to food system policy. Brazil chose to convene a dialogue that was as open and inclusive as possible, in divide into two rounds. In the first round, there were 3 video-conferences dealing with specific Action Tracks of the Food Systems Summit. The first video-conference was on May 10th 2021 and was focused on Action Tracks 1 and 4. The second video-conference was on May 12th 2021 and was directed mostly to Action Tracks 2 and 3. The third video-conference was on May 14th 2021 and was based on Action Track 5. The video-conferences were open and inclusive spaces for debate and sharing of ideas, which included different actors involved with food systems, varying from civil society to producers’ associations and from small informal institutions to big international companies. The combination of oral and written inputs from different stakeholders was important to reflect the variety of views of key actors. These comments will be considered in the preparation of the National position to the presented to the Food Systems Summit.

234238241245247248249251The first round of the Brazilian National Dialogue was divided in three video-conferences, which dealt with the topics related to the Action Tracks of the Food Systems Summit. This document focus on the first video-conference, which was held on May 10th, under the theme “Promoting Food and Nutrition Security Guaranteeing Equitable Inclusion in the Value Chain”. It was focused on Action Tracks 1 and 4 (“Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all” and “Advance equitable livelihoods”). The first video-conference addressed the specific characteristics of tropical food systems – which differ significantly from food systems of countries with temperate climates. The fight against hunger and food insecurity, as well as the reduction of malnutrition and the improvement of livelihoods and working conditions of the population, especially for the workers of the food value chain, were also central themes in the discussions. The video-conference discussed mechanisms for the reduction of severe food insecurity, access to healthy and nutritious food for all and food and nutritional security. An important topic under discussion was the need to increase both the availability and consumption of healthy foods, in a sustainable manner. The elimination of poverty through full and productive employment and decent work for all along the entire food value chain was also central to the debate. The video-conference brought together panelists from different areas to set the tone of the discussion, notably from the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply; the Ministry of Citizenship; and two private sector organizations, the National Confederation of Agriculture (CNA) and the Commerce Social Service (SESC). In selecting the topics and the panelists, consideration was given to the main topics under discussion, representation and interest in food system policy. During the debate, speakers from a variety of backgrounds presented their views, concerns and proposals on the discussion about the role of smallholder farmers to the promotion of healthy diets – including through the role of traditional communities , the roles of women and the youth, the key role of international trade of agricultural products, “green belts” and peri-urban agriculture, as well as the characteristics of Brazilian agricultural systems and methods of production – in their different forms – and of the national food system.235238241245247248249251The Dialogue highlighted the important differences between tropical food systems – such as in Brazil – and food systems in temperate developed countries. Concerns were voiced about the possible use of the FSS to promote European models of food production and consumption, which are not necessarily compatible with other regions of the planet. The Dialogue stressed the key role of trade to ensure the supply of quality and accessible food to expanding world population. It further highlighted the necessity of preventing the Summit from being instrumentalized to justify the increase in protectionism, especially through the establishment of non-tariff barriers. As a global food supplier and a major exporter, Brazil has much to contribute to the international debate, including in the Food Systems Summit. Tropical agriculture in Brazil is efficient, highly productive, resilient and sustainable. The FSS should recognize and promote a multiplicity of food systems – in Brazil and elsewhere – as complementary solutions. In this sense, the Summit should not prescribe specific models of production or consumption, which might serve some populations, but can accentuate inequalities and increase global food insecurity. There is no one-size-fits-all solution, as every country/region has specificities that will require tailored approaches. Whilst it is important to preserve agricultural trade, it is also necessary to ensure the equitable inclusion of the population in the food system. There was strong consensus about the need to consider a human-rights approach to food production and consumption. It was deemed important to facilitate access to healthy food, with a focus on the domestic market needs. To that effect, different policies were mentioned, adapted to the local situation. Emergency income or basic income policies, such and the “Bolsa Familia”, are important to support people in situation of vulnerability and promote social inclusion. The population should have access not only to healthy and nutritious food, but also food at accessible prices. Despite the recent price increase in certain foodstuffs, the cost of the national food basket has fallen significantly over the last 20 years. Specific mentions were made to indigenous, “quilombola” (descendants of former slaves) and riverside communities, among others. Such groups face particularly vulnerable situations that deserve special attention from public policies through the direct distribution of income and food and policies that encourage their own food production. The issue of food security involves socioeconomic aspects (associated with inequalities in the distribution of income and property), as well as technical issues of production. It is necessary to develop policies that tackle inequalities, expand access to healthy food, reduce food loss and waste, foster decent work and generate improvements in the entire production chain, with gains in productivity, sustainability and overall livelihood standards within the value chain. Some recommendations for building and implementing sustainable food systems that Brazil would like to share include: incentives for technology and innovation, availability of credit and financing for adaptation and implementation of production systems with productivity and social gains, and dissemination of knowledge, through training and capacity building.236238241245247249251Tropical agriculture can be more productive (up to three harvests per year) and sustainable (less use of water and preservation of soils) than agricultural systems in developed countries with temperate climates. It is possible to significantly increase food production in tropical systems through productivity gains, without increasing deforestation or land degradation. Given the expected increase in global population on the planet, international trade has a key role in the provision of healthy food at accessible prices. International trade is also important to promote global resilience, by distributing food from producing areas to areas at risk of food insecurity. In this regard, it would be important to reduce protectionism and avoid new barriers to agricultural trade. It is crucial to avoid the imposition of external models that are not suited to local realities. There is an excessive influence of the “European Green Deal” in international debates regarding food systems, given that it is not adequate for most situations in developing countries. Science and technology are essential elements to increase food production sustainably. Brazil, for instance, has increased agricultural production by 6-fold while only doubling the use of land. Therefore, investments in scientific research institutions – such as the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (Embrapa) and highly qualified universities – are key to increasing sustainable production of food and the resilience of food systems. Access to credit, training and capacity building for producers, especially smallholder farmers, are crucial. Policies related to credit help avoid migration towards urban areas and foster opportunities in the agricultural sector, as well as increase production and resilience in food systems. By regularizing land ownership, it is possible to obtain productivity gains and promote sustainable production methods. It is important to establish/maintain coordinating institutions or fora, with wide participation of different stakeholders. Such bodies provide inputs from civil society to the government for the implementation of public policies regarding availability and access to healthy foods and provide accountability mechanisms of government actions. Civil society should be an integral part of the process, by facilitating dialogue and ensuring accountability of policies and regulations. Government policies should focus on promoting decent work and better living conditions for workers in the agricultural sector, as well as on reducing the digital gap in the countryside. This is important not only in aspects related to food systems, but also for the achievement of the SDGs. In the current pandemic, it is necessary to tackle the increase in levels of food insecurity and hunger, including by supporting smallholder and family farmers. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the strengthening of social policies in Brazil has helped to maintain family consumption and, therefore, the continuity of the functioning of food systems, which reflects directly in their resilience. Public policies are needed to support people/families in situation of vulnerability. Basic income or conditional income policies, such as the “Bolsa Família”, promote food security and help to ensure access to healthy diets. In developing and implementing policies related to food systems, it is useful to adopt holistic approaches. Questions related to health conditions (prevention of non-communicable diseases, obesity and malnutrition), fighting hunger and reducing greenhouse gas emissions coming from land use, for instance, have to be considered together with concerns about food production, security and safety. While preserving choice and respecting cultural traditions, the government has a role in promoting healthy eating habits and sustainable production patterns, which include reducing food loss and waste and implementing adaptation measures to climate change. Public policy may contribute to facilitate the access of the population to healthy food products, fostering healthy diets and increasing the sustainability of the food production.237238241243245247248249251While there was wide agreement about the main issues under discussion, the dialogue also identified areas of divergence. - Different roles of smallholder and commercial farmers. Smallholder and family farmers generally supply the internal market, but large-scale commercial farming also play an important role in domestic food supply. The establishment of a modern export oriented agricultural sector in Brazil was largely responsible for the reduction in domestic food prices over the last 20 years. - Illegal logging and deforestation have been associated with loss of biodiversity and forest cover. However, illegally cleared land is not generally used for production of crops for export. The national forest code offers an effective legal framework for sustainable agriculture, including in the Amazon region where only 20 % of privately owned land can be legally cleared for production. - Promotion of agricultural products for export versus promotion of agriculture for local consumption. There are different assessments of the benefits deriving from policies that promote agricultural production for the domestic and international markets. In fact, the two sectors are interconnected and government policy does not privilege one sector in detriment of the other. - Importance of promoting agro-ecological approaches versus conventional agriculture. While the agroecological/organic sector has been growing strongly in Brazil, the products are costly and do not substitute foodstuffs produced by commercial agriculture. Rather, the two sectors have a complementary role, assuring consumer choice and the diversity of supplies/suppliers. - The role of processed foods in food and nutrition security. There was wide agreement that a balanced and healthy diet should be based on semi-processed or less processed foods. - Nature of the national food guide. The national food guide offers important nutrition information for the consumer, but, ultimately, the consumers should be free to choose their own diet.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/videoconferencia-1-doc.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/videconferencia01_pp.pdfhttps://www.gov.br/mre/pt-br/cupula-2021-sistemas-alimentares-dialogos

English version of reference document prepared by the Brazilian Government to help guide the debates in the video-conference.2021-06-09 12:48:44https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Videoconferência-1-tradução-rev-DCID.pdf

2021-06-07 13:46:44205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/14586/33

3872472627821442479272626048631041320194042141110102921111116913721104763

The Brazilian National Dialogue was organized by the Ministry of External Affairs (MRE) with active participation from different areas of the federal government that are responsible for the main subjects that comprise a food system, with special consideration to specific characteristics of the Brazilian food system and the Brazilian legislation on Food and Nutrition Security. The Ministry of External Affairs was responsible for convening the dialogue. The Ministry of Citizenship (MC); the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply (MAPA); the Ministry of Health (MS); the Ministry of the Environment (MMA) and the Advisory Counsel of the Chief of Staff of the Presidency (Casa Civil) were the main partners during the process of organizing the Dialogue. The Ministry of Education (MEC) and the Office of the UN in Brasília were also important partners. Brazil opted to conduct a multi-stakeholder organization process for the National Dialogue, in order to encompass the various unique perspectives each area can contribute to the discussion. Such multi-stakeholder approach was reflected at the National Dialogue, which benefited from the participation of different actors involved with food systems, varying from civil society to producers’ associations and from small informal institutions to big international companies. The government created a dedicated website to disseminate information about the National Dialogue and the Food Systems Summit, including reference documents. Regular and periodic announcements about the Dialogue were transmitted through social media. Inscription for the National Dialogue was made through an on-line form, that was available in the dedicated website for about 10 days. The video-conference was held through Zoom and transmitted by YouTube and Facebook for the wider public. The digital file of the video-conference can be accessed in the dedicated digital platform of the National Dialogue.Brazil chose to convene a dialogue that was as open and inclusive as possible. Taking into consideration time constraints and the epidemiological situation due to the COVID-19 pandemic in the country, the first round of Brazilian National Dialogue was conducted in a 100% virtual mode, through video-conferences. The video-conferences dealt with specific Action Tracks of the Food Systems Summit. The first video-conference (“Promoting Food and Nutrition Security Guaranteeing Equitable Inclusion in the Value Chain”) was held on May 10th 2021 and was focused on Action Tracks 1 and 4. The second video-conference (“Incentivizing a Sustainable Production and Consumption of Health Food”) happened on May 12th 2021 and addressed Action Tracks 2 and 3. The third video-conference (“Building Resilient Food Systems”) took place on May 14th 2021 and was based on Action Track 5. The video-conferences were open and inclusive spaces for debate and sharing of ideas. After the opening address, panelists from government, the private sector and civil society made presentations about the main issues under discussion. Registered participants were invited to intervene orally during the event. Participants that did not register to take the floor were invited to send written comments to the organizers of the event, related to the topics discussed in each video-conference. The combination of the reception of oral and written inputs from different stakeholders was important as it reflected the diverse views that integrate the Brazilian Food System and presented suggestions on how it can be improved.The video-conferences allowed for inclusive multi-stakeholder dialogues, with wide participation of different segments of the society, productive sector, academia and the government. Such format is conducive to meeting the Principles of Engagement.

NoThe Ministry of External Affairs was responsible for convening and curating the Brazilian National Dialogue. The organization of the dialogue had the active participation from different areas of the federal government, that are responsible for the main subjects that comprise a food system. Brazil chose to convene a dialogue that was as open and inclusive as possible. The dialogue was 100% virtual – using digital video-conferencing platform – because of time constraints and the epidemiological situation due to the COVID-19 pandemic in the country. The video-conferences was crosscutting and did not rely on discussion groups. The first video-conference was on May 10th 2021 and was focused on Action Tracks 1 and 4. The second video-conference was on May 12th 2021 and was directed mostly to Action Tracks 2 and 3. The third video-conference was on May 14th 2021 and was based on Action Track 5. The video-conferences were open and inclusive spaces for debate and sharing of ideas, with the participation of different actors involved with food systems, varying from civil society to producers’ associations and from small informal institutions to big international companies. Participants were invited to register if they wanted to make an intervention during the event. All the participants were invited to send written comments to the organizers, if they so wished.

234242243244246248249The first round of the National Brazilian Dialogue was divided into three video-conferences, which dealt with specific topics related to the Action Tracks of the Food Systems Summit. This document focus on the third video-conference, which was held on May, 14th, under the theme “Building Resilient Food Systems”. It was focused on Action Track 5 (“Build resilience to vulnerabilities, shock and stress”). In order to reduce the risks for food insecurity, food systems need to become more resilient. The roles of smallholder farmers, women, government policies, business environment, innovation, adaptation techniques and national legislation are essential aspects of the discussion about resilience. Different countries face distinct realities in order to promote resilience of their food systems. Maintaining the continued functionality of food systems, especially in areas that are prone to conflicts or natural disasters, is crucial in this regard. Actions to increase the economic, social and environmental resilience of food systems, along with measures to mitigate and adapt to climate change, should be addressed with a view to increasing the resilience of food systems. The video-conference brought together panelists from different areas to set the tone of the discussion, notably from the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply; the Ministry of Citizenship; and two private sector organizations, Agroicone – a consultancy company focused on agriculture matters – and the Brazilian Business Council for Sustainable Development. When the floor was open for interventions, speakers from a variety of backgrounds presented their positions, concerns and proposals on the discussion about increasing the resilience of food systems, including through the roles of smallholder farmers, women and the youth, as well as the characteristics of the national agricultural methods – in its different forms – and of the national food system.235242243244246247248The Dialogue raised concerns about the predominance of narratives that are not entirely applicable to Brazilian food systems, namely shortening production chains, concentrating on local production and focusing on eco-agricultural methods. Different countries face different realities and have different climates, environments, histories and food systems. As noted, such models can be more expensive, less efficient and incapable to meet the growing demand for food in the world (taking into account population growth estimates in Africa and Asia). Given that not all countries are self-sufficient or will be able to adapt their production systems quickly, even if favorable conditions are present, the world food trade will continue to be fundamental to promote food security and resilience to shocks, in addition to generating wealth in the form of income and jobs. It must be highlighted that this does not mean that local production and short chains are per se harmful. The idea is that each production method has its role in ensuring food security and resilience and need to coexist. Brazil has several experiences of local production – peri-urban agriculture, community gardens – that are important for domestic consumption, but they coexist with large scale commercial agriculture and production facilities. Brazil, as a global food supplier and a major exporter, has much to contribute to the international debate, including in the Food Systems Summit. Tropical agriculture in Brazil is efficient, highly productive, resilient and sustainable. Food production in Brazil has low carbon emissions, compared to similar activities in developed countries with temperate climate. There are some successful national programs that can be used as examples of actions to build resilient food systems. Some of them are: the Rural Insurance Program (PSR), the Agroclimatic Risk Zoning (ZARC) and the National School Feeding Program (which purchases 30% of food items from local family farms in every region of the country). In addition, Brazil is a pioneer in cultivation and production techniques such as low-carbon emission agriculture and could act as a knowledge multiplier for countries with similar climate conditions. Regarding the construction of resilient food systems, it is necessary to take into consideration the multiplicity of existing food systems, which act as complementary solutions to each other. In this sense, the Summit should not focus on reductionist one-size-fits-all conclusions, nor limit its recommendations to specific models of production, which would serve a very small portion of the world population and exacerbate inequalities. The issue of food security involves socioeconomic aspects (associated with inequalities in the distribution of income and means of production), as well as technical issues of production. Public policies should address inequalities, expand access to healthy food, reduce food waste and loss and generate improvements in the entire production chain, with gains in productivity and resilience. Some recommendations for building sustainable food systems that Brazil would like to share are: incentives for technology and innovation, availability of credit and financing for adaptation and implementation of production systems with productivity and social gains, and dissemination of knowledge, through training and capacity building.236242243244246247248249Brazilian tropical agriculture is resilient and sustainable. It can contribute to meet other countries food security needs and strengthen national food systems. Programs related to: i) rural credit; ii) adaptation and low-carbon agriculture policies; iii) rural production insurance; and iv) agro-climatic risk zoning, can be adapted and implemented in other tropical/semi-tropical countries. Such policies can help countries meet their international commitments regarding greenhouse gas emission and strengthen resilience. Farmers become less affected by crop fluctuation outcomes, crops can be chosen respecting environmental conditions of different areas and can be adapted to climate change. The integration between agriculture-livestock -forest helps the implementation of more sustainable and resilient food system. Investment in science and technology is essential for increasing food production and promoting sustainable food systems. In order to achieve present levels of productivity and sustainability, Brazil developed, over the course of 50 years, a tropical agricultural technology adapted to the prevailing soil, climate and water cycle conditions in the country. In particular, investments in scientific research institutions – such as the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (Embrapa) and several highly qualified Universities – are important for the development of resilient food systems. Access to credit, training and capacity building for producers, especially smallholder farmers, can play a major role in fostering resilience of food systems. Such policies related to credit address risk and foster resilient food systems. Moreover, land ownership should be regularized in order to promote sustainable agricultural production and ensure more resilient food systems. In Brazil, the agricultural and food sectors contribute not only to economic and social resilience, but also to the achievement of the SDGs. Municipalities in agricultural areas tend to have higher HDI, on average, than in other regions. Formal workers in the agricultural and food sector tend to have higher wages than the Brazilian average. Given the increasing risk of external shocks and crises affecting food systems, it is also important to provide emergency income or conditional cash transfer programs, such as “Bolsa Família”, especially to groups in situation of vulnerability. Such policies promote the resilience as they enable continuous consumption patterns by the population. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the strengthening of social policies has helped to maintain family consumption and, therefore, the continuity of functioning of food systems, which reflects directly in their resilience. In this context, it is particularly important to adopt a holistic approach to food systems. Policies to address health, to eradicate hunger and malnutrition, as well as to reduce greenhouse gas emissions related to land use are interdependent. They are further interconnected to measures to foster food security, resilience of food systems and sustainability. Finally, healthy eating habits and sustainable production patterns, which include reducing food loss and waste and implementing adaptation measures to climate change, may contribute to the resilience of food systems.237242243244248249250- Concentration of the food sector may affect the resilience of food systems. While Brazil has a number of large food and agriculture companies, it is not clear that there is a long-term trend towards concentration, nor that concentration per se harms the consumer and affects resilience. Most food available to Brazilian consumers come from family agriculture. - Reduction of biodiversity affects the resilience of food systems. The Brazilian legal framework, including the national forest code, contribute to the conservation of biodiversity, but requires more active enforcement measures. - International trade contributes to the resilience of food systems. Local production is important, but very few countries are self-sufficient in agricultural food products. They will continue to rely on trade for the foreseeable future to complement national systems, ensure food security and foodstuffs at affordable prices. - Short versus long production and supply chains. Short agricultural production chains may have some benefits, but rarely can a country rely only on local agricultural products. In situations of increasing risk of climate shocks, global chains can provide necessary food supplies from other regions. Such chains must be in place and operational, given that they cannot be built overnight. A very good example is the resilience of the global food supply chains during the Covid19 Pandemic, which have contributed to guaranteeing food security to billions of people worldwide.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/videoconferencia-3-doc.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/videconferencia03_pp.pdfhttps://www.gov.br/mre/pt-br/cupula-2021-sistemas-alimentares-dialogos

English version of the reference document prepared by the Brazilian Government to help guide the debates in the video-conference.2021-06-09 00:39:03https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Videoconferência-3-tradução-rev-DCID.pdf

2021-06-07 15:15:42204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/10167/203

02653213047560111163554113913511122381232512

We worked diligently to ensure the inclusion and participation of different voices and stakeholders in the Dialogue. As a lead up to the Dialogue, MCLD started mobilizing members by inviting people working with the Food Systems Summit in various capacities to speak at our meetings to create an understanding around the Action Tracks and levers of change. We invited members to start thinking about community-led food systems to share best practices through a specially curated blog series (available at https://mcld.org/mobilizing-resilient-community-led-food-systems/) . A committee comprising members from different parts of the world including Benin, Mexico, Netherlands, India and the US was created to design the dialogue process and identify participants and facilitators representing various stakeholder groups. We ensured representation of not just NGOs, INGOs and government, but also small scale farmers, local organizations, academics and multinational corporations. Facilitators ranged from youth activists to CEOs. All facilitators were taken through a preparatory process to ensure that they were familiar with not just their action tracks but also the summit principles. Facilitator guides were prepared along with suggested questions for engaging the participants. Breakout groups were kept small to ensure participation of all people. Three powerful women speakers from three parts of the world were invited to set the tone/agenda for the meeting. They spoke to gender, small-holder farmers and indigenous people’s role in the food systems.Our aim was to provide a platform for Movement organizations to provide their input and hear from a variety of voices on a subject that matters to us all - community-led development. We paired community-level voices with those from international organizations, private business voices with those of local NGOs, and provided an inclusive environment for those voices to be heard. During our dialogue, we essentially practiced what we preach within the Movement, which is closely related to the Summit’s principles of engagement.Inviting such a varied group of stakeholders into the same room can be challenging, especially as we all speak not just different languages but also use the same language differently depending on which part of the sector we represent. We addressed this by providing participants with a pre-dialogue participant kit with information about the Summit and Action Tracks and reading about community-led food systems. This guided our conversation and enabled us to speak the same language around the subjects that mattered to us all. We also created these kits in Spanish and French for our participants and ensured that breakout rooms were available in all three languages- English, French and Spanish - to enable people to participate freely and meaningfully without barriers of language.

NoWe used the method outlined in the Convener Reference Manual, with adaptations to ensure meaningful participation and engagement by the different stakeholder groups particularly small farmers and local CBOs that have limited access to technology and wifi. Our opening plenary consisted of three speakers, who were instrumental in framing the context of our dialogue’s specific topic. Each speaker addressed a different aspect or theme of community-led food systems, and each delivered their remarks in a way that inspired our discussion groups. The importance of having the speakers set the context through their own work and concrete examples was reiterated by many participants in a follow-up meeting a week after the dialogue. Our speakers framed the overall topic but did not introduce facilitators or specific action tracks . Instead, facilitators introduced themselves to their groups and briefly introduced the action tracks. In addition to this, participants already had received kits with relevant information. This ensured they were better prepared for the discussion and that they could directly ask facilitators if they had questions around the AT or the framing of the discussion. Our discussion groups were 40 minutes long - the small size of the groups ensured meaningful participation by all. The groups were organized thematically, each tackling a specific action track. All participants had pre-selected their AT. Groups were pre-created to ensure diversity in the room. The Spanish and French language groups did not focus on a single AT, but on the themes identified by the participants. Additionally, we wanted to engage many speakers throughout our dialogue, so our curator was not the only voice in the event. We elevated youth voices, thought leaders, and Movement members to deliver different parts of the opening and closing remarks. In this way, we truly were acting within the Principles of Engagement of the Summit by embracing inclusivity, recognizing the importance of diverse stakeholders and voices and ensuring that people build on each other’s work,

234238239240241242247251Community-led food systems are systems in which communities have the power to address their own nutrition and food security needs. Projects within community-led food systems are often local, collaborative and engage the entire local food system,. On May 19th, the Movement for Community-led Development (MLCD) hosted an Independent Dialogue which focused on mobilizing resilient, community-led food systems. Our dialogue was centered around exploring localization in global food policy and discussing people-based solutions to the problems our food systems are facing at the grassroots level. The overarching theme of the Dialogue was that resilience starts at the community level and that community-led food systems must be prioritized in order to achieve the Five UN Action Tracks. Prior to the Dialogue, participants were asked to think about their vision for a community-led food system, barriers to strengthening community-based food systems in their community or area of interest, strategies to address these barriers and changes needed at the policy, implementation and funding level to build resilient community-led food systems and the role of different stakeholders in making these changes. In order to explore more specific areas of our focus, MCLD invited three keynote speakers: Dr Jemimah Njuki, (Director for Africa, IFPRI), Dr. Myrna Cunningham Kain (Member of the Food Systems Summit Advisory Committee) and Dr. Madhura Swaminathan (Chair, M.S. Swaminathan Research Foundation). These speakers situated the role of gender equality, Indigenous knowledge and small-scale farming into the broader discussion of community-led food systems. Following our speaker’s presentations, participants separated out into ten discussion groups based on the five UN Action Tracks to discuss policy proposals for the Food Systems Summit. To learn more about Community-led Food Systems read this paper by John Coonrod: https://mcld.org/2021/03/31/systems-thinking-for-community-led-food-systems/2352382392402412422432442472482492511. Modes of Action: Need for Community and Policy level initiatives The Dialogue highlighted the need for both community-level and policy-level action. Participants agreed that food systems cannot be transformed through homogenous modes of action, but rather through synergies between community-level and policy-level initiatives. In terms of community-level action, participants agreed on the need for advocating with governments and big retailers to prioritize local foods, campaigning to eliminate the use of plastics, and prioritizing education surrounding sustainable and nutritious foods at the early childhood level. In terms of policy-level action, participants discussed the need to shift government policy towards better natural resource management and more nutritious / sustainable systems of production, reduce energy costs for small farmers, invest in research that improves the economics of sustainable / nutritious food, and support international agreements to measure gender data in farming. 2. Working with Indigenous communities and Paired Dialogues The need to establish paired dialogues or partnerships between Indigenous knowledge holders and scientists was reiterated in the Dialogue. Indigenous knowledge, values and practices have traditionally been disregarded and excluded from the discourse on food systems despite the fact that they have created food systems that are biodiverse, nutritious, climate resilient, equitable and rooted in sustainable livelihood practices. Indigenous food systems have not only ensured the food sovereignty, health and wellbeing of Indigenous communities over generations, but have contributed to biodiversity conservation and sustainable development for the benefit of all humankind. A paired dialogue between Indigenous knowledge holders and scientists could therefore generate and improve knowledge surrounding food systems, climate change, the management of crops and seeds and other topics alike. Other solutions for working with indigenous communities included: * Conducting research with indigenous peoples and gathering more evidence on indigenous knowledge systems * Creating a trust fund, managed by indigenous communities, to support work * Supporting indigenous land tenure and community systems of protection and management * Strengthening the landscape approach with a comprehensive and holistic vision that aims to recover and strengthen the production of traditional medicines, seeds, crops, livestock, sources of wild and indigenous foods with high nutritional potential (local superfoods) * Facilitating the commercialization of indigenous products by supporting community-based businesses and economic initiatives of Indigenous peoples 3. Gender Equality through improved policy and data Since women face countless barriers including access to resources, lack of land rights, social norms and institutional barriers, the role (and importance) of women within food systems must be prioritized. Women are typically visible in production, processing and trading sectors, however their visibility diminishes as we move up the value chain. This is problematic as there is a notable connection between gender equality, food systems, food security and nutrition. As our speaker Dr. Jemimah Njuki noted, “the countries with the highest gender inequalities also tend to be the hungriest”. In order to overcome extreme gender inequality within food systems, participants suggested the need for gender-sensitive data collection, gender empowerment programs at the state level and legislative action to involve women in policymaking. ICT can also be used to provide agricultural advisories and training to women in farming communities 4. Youth Involvement for sustainability Discussions revealed the importance of exploring the involvement of youth in food systems in order to strengthen their future structures. Youth have the ability to take ownership of the local food systems in their community. If given the opportunity to positively and meaningfully engage in their local food systems then they can transform these systems and make these systems more sustainable. In countries such as Haiti, succession of food producers is not assured to sustain / safeguard future food systems because younger generations / populations are not interested in a career in producing food. Strategies to effectively engage younger generations in creating a sustainable food system include: * A combination of farm and school structures to build understanding amongst younger generations of their local food systems. * Programs that facilitate conversations between older and younger generations regarding existing food systems. An existing generational difference in communication style can hinder the education of youth in food production. * Younger generations should be involved in village banking so they can save money / begin farming practices. 5. Building Networks of small-holder farmers Smallholder farmers who form the bulk of the global food systems face numerous barriers from access to technology to high production costs, lack of storage facilities and unequal access to markets. Examples from India ( Group Federation of Small Farmers Initiative in Tamil Nadu by the M. S. Swaminathan Research Foundation)and other parts of the world show the importance of creating federations of small farmers who can not only serve as a pressure group to highlight their interests but also leverage funds from banks and governments and undertake collective action for ensuring better access to technology and local infrastructure.236238244247250251The discussion groups were structured around the 5 Action Tracks along with language groups in Spanish and French which looked at an overview of action required to strengthen community-led food systems: Action Track 1: Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all Two groups explored this topic. Their vision for creating a community-led food system included implementing policies that are inclusive towards indigenous communities. A key issue discussed was how to best support the longevity of indigenous farming practices. While smallholder farmers produce crops that possess market value, there is a long-term risk of losing indigenous seeds in local food systems. Furthermore, existing policies do not currently support the practices of indigenous communities. GMOs are currently in danger of wiping out the sale of indigenous seeds on the market and nutritious / organic food from local communities are not receiving enough market value. Access to information for farmers, importance of WASH and lack of diversity in the local food plate and in choices available to farmers also surfaced as important issues. Urgent issues towards ensuring the availability of nutritious foods in local communities involve: *Supporting the longevity of indigenous farming practices *Supporting land accessibility for women *Examining policies surrounding food systems that are not region or country specific * Budget contributions towards strengthening the availability of nutritious foods in existing food systems In order to support the inclusion of nutritious food in local food systems, the following solutions were proposed to be undertaken at a community-based level: * Working with communities to prepare better methods of storing food in order to safeguard food against natural and economic shocks * Supporting / continuing practices of growing nutritious foods within households and trading produce between households that occurred during the pandemic. * Rethinking / restructuring the system of local market supply in providing nutritious foods to markets in big cities. This often contributes to lack of nutritious food in local rural markets. * Supporting household farming to encourage farmers to produce foods for local consumption. * Effectively disseminating nutritional information from health experts to communities * Addressing climate change in local farming communities to educate farmers on the importance of crop diversity. * Providing farmers with access to diverse seeds and with capacity strengthening. Some of these actions require work at the policy level while others need community level programming and advocacy by local CSOs, INGOs and community groups.236239244248Action Track 2: Shift to sustainable consumption patterns This group’s vision for community action to shift to sustainable consumption patterns involved supporting early childhood education on sustainable nutritious food, placing community pressure on governments and big retailers to prioritize local foods, building better rural roads and local transport systems to reduce the “time-to-market”, and campaigning to eliminate the use of plastics. They recognised the need for concerted action at the community level and advocacy to ensure an enabling policy environment with the government. Policy ideas included shifting government policy away from solely increasing production towards better natural resource management and a more nutritious and sustainable system of production, reducing the energy costs for small farmers (electricity costs are too high for cooking and they contribute to deforestation), addressing monopolies by fast food companies and investing in research that improves the economics of sustainable nutritious food.236240243245250Action Track 3: Boost nature-positive production This group's vision entailed rebuilding the current food system to capitalize on new and knowledge while pairing it with indigenous knowledge to ensure sustainable practices. To achieve this vision, the group discussed solutions that seek to empower communities in tangible ways by investing in them and not imposing solutions imported from the global North. This could be done by providing resources directly to communities, developing strong community level partnerships and providing support for community-based decisions on how to use those resources. This would entail having the decolonizing aid conversation within the food systems framework and shifting power from global to local. Other solutions discussed involved integrating technology and indigenous knowledge, educating local producers on the implications of unsustainable practices, and putting human rights at the heart of community based food systems with land and territory acknowledgement. Solutions that seek to reconcile new technology with indigenous knowledge should be community-focused and include processes, roles, and timelines that allow for community input and influence in the outcome. Suggestions to strengthen the input of the indigenous community in food-system processes included: * Gathering more evidence on indigenous peoples knowledge systems * Conducting more research with indigenous peoples * Creating a trust fund managed by indigenous people to support work236241243249251Action Track 4: Advance equitable livelihoods The group discussed methods to overcome gender inequality for people who identify as women, enabling economic, political and institutional infrastructure that promotes equitable livelihoods, and involving men and boys into the conversation on women in agriculture. Methods discussed to advance equitable livelihoods in local food systems by working with international and state governments, local communities, and men and boys included: *collecting measurable gender-sensitive data, especially around women's work * supporting international agreements to measure gender data in farming (and other activities) * supporting legislative initiatives to address gender inequality like joint land ownership in India * engaging men in discussions of women in agriculture * supporting gender empowerment programs at a state level * recognizing the role of cooperatives in building resilience and ensuring youth are included in these cooperatives Specific examples of cooperatives and collective action were brought in from India. Plant Clinics were established to provide agricultural advisories via phone, tablet, and other information communication technology (ICT) tools to women in farming communities in Tamil Nadu in southern India. This enabled people from all over the region, be they literate or illiterate, to access information in a comprehensible manner, resulting in lower input costs, increased productivity, and the use of safer farming practices (such as using less pesticide sprays). Similarly the Group Federation of Small Farmers initiative in Tamil Nadu consisted of a large number of women and over 800 farming groups mostly from tribal communities in India. They functioned as a Farmer Producer Organization (FPO) leveraging funds from banks and the government to bring new technology to small farmer communities. The group recognized that current economic, political, and institutional structures maintain the unequal power dynamics in our system and made the following recommendations to address these: * Educating community members on issues of farming practices, nutrition, and rights in order to mobilize the voices of individuals, particularly women * Using ICT technology to foster awareness and engage women’s voices in policy issues; demystifying computer and social media skills * Altering “one size fits all” policies that work well in certain areas but poorly in others236242248251Action Track 5: Build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress. This topic was discussed by two groups. The discussion centered around self-reliance in local communities and the engagement of younger generations in transforming local food systems to make them more sustainable. Participants recognized that the current global food systems are unable to deal with shocks; the COVID 19 pandemic clearly demonstrated that when the global systems and supply chains ground to a halt, local food systems proved to be much more resilient to the shock. Barriers towards strengthening community based food systems within this Action Track included difficulties in transporting farm produce, lack of access to farming technologies, lack of youth involvement in community-led food systems, and inadequate local infrastructure to store food. The groups discussed the advent of food insecurity in communities which were heavily dependent on external markets either for getting agricultural produce and seeds or for selling local produce. This was exacerbated by the lack of adequate post harvest storage facilities that resulted in produce going bad and disheartened farmers. In contrast, communities that produced and consumed most of their food locally were less affected by the pandemic induced lockdowns and travel restrictions. Strategies to address these issues include incorporating a use of community pantries to reduce the loss of excess produce, creating community gardens to address issues of food stability during the pandemic, and practice of community-supported agriculture where the produce and profits feed local markets, reducing the transport and infrastructure required to support food systems. The groups discussed specific examples from countries like the Philippines and Afghanistan to address the crisis. These included supporting women to start and run organic community farms in the Philippines which were not only environment-friendly, but also ensured that families dependent on remittances (that stopped due to the pandemic) had a source of income and access to nutritious food. Or using the traditional methods for drying and storing food as in Afghanistan which are inexpensive, have low environmental footprints and require low-technological investment even as they prevent spoilage. Importance of youth involvement in local food systems by providing training and support services like access to banking and farm schools were also considered imperative in order to develop resilience in these systems.236245246249Discussion Group with French-Speaking Participants: All ATs A community-led food system is one that is articulated around local assets, resources, and knowledge. Furthermore, the system is inclusive, and functions on the basis of justice and equality. The main barrier facing our food systems is the lack of a local food system supply chain that values local assets. To overcome this obstacle, we need the involvement of the government, in terms of investment, regulation, training, and communication. Relentless activism of the Civil Society and the support of scientists and researchers is also essential. Solutions proposed towards supporting a community led food system supply chain include the involvement of key actors such as community members, scientists, and researchers. Proposed solutions to this issue are: * Involving the government in investment, regulation, education / training and communication * Incorporating the support of scientists and researchers to support this issue * Supporting an attractive scheme for private sector actors to match social and economic aspects within a resilient food system236244249251Discussion Group with Spanish-Speaking Participants: All ATs Visions for community-led food systems within this group involved incorporating diverse actors such as women and indigenous populations into existing food systems, protecting and promoting local food systems, and generating community ownership of these systems. The recognized the need to speak of not a single food system but the diversity in food systems. Barriers towards achieving these visions of community-led sustainable food systems are a lack of support for small-scale production practices, the impact of climate change on production and crops, and a general lack of access to land tenure and means of production to bolster local food systems. Solutions discussed towards overcoming these obstacles include implementing public policies that are community-centered and strengthening local community members' sense of their own resilience and capability. The group also acknowledged that producers alone are not responsible for ensuring resilient and sustainable food systems - consumers also need to share this responsibility.237240241250One area of divergence that emerged during the Dialogue was the discussion of modern technology within food systems. Although modern technology may present unique opportunities for food systems, many participants raised the concern that community-led food systems often lack access to such technologies, making them unable to reap the potential benefits. Moreover, while certain participants believed that modern technology can offer unique avenues for innovation and improvement, others suggested that it can create a plethora of issues. For instance, the use of modern technology within food systems can create a vast amount of environmental degradation, which can have devastating effects on local ecosystems and livelihoods, as well as climate change. Additionally, while certain aspects of modern technology (i.e. automation) may potentially reduce labor costs of food production and processing, they may also increase energy costs and create displacement, which can be extremely harmful to small-scale farmers and their communities. The conversation of modern technology within food systems also extended to Indigenous communities. Although modern technology has created a variety of issues for Indigenous peoples (i.e. poor water quality, deforestation and displacement), participants alluded to the potential for collaboration between modern technology and Indigenous systems. Rather than prolonging the tension between the two systems and constantly viewing them as diametric, we should find ways to integrate them to promote harmony and resilience. Another area of divergence within the Dialogue was the emphasis placed on supporting Indigenous or small-scale farming communities in order to strengthen local food systems. Discussions around Action Track 1 touched upon how absence of adequate knowledge coupled with low incomes and need for survival may drive small holder farmers to adopt more "marketable crops" and GMOs which may lead to the extinction of indigenous seeds and crop varieties. The dialogue did result in very clear examples and recommendations for strengthening both these stakeholder groups within the food systems. Small farmers experience low, inadequate and fluctuating incomes and face barriers such as high production costs and an unequal access to input and output markets. The Plant Clinics and Group Federation of Small Farmers Initiatives from India demonstrate the positive impact of collective action on the livelihoods and incomes of small farmers. Indigenous people have long been stewards of the land. Traditional indigenous practices and values have not only ensured the food sovereignty, health and wellbeing of Indigenous communities over generations, but have contributed to biodiversity conservation and sustainable development for the benefit of all humankind. National and independent dialogues are necessary to alter the narrative of labeling community-led and indigenous food systems as underdeveloped systems. Dialogues analyzing the relationship between indigenous knowledge and food systems play an essential role in the development of community-led food systems. One area to consider is that could organization of small holder farmers into federations coupled with a strong policy environment that recognizes, documents and seeks to support indigenous crops and knowledge provide small farmers with the information, incentive and infrastructure to invest in local superfoods?

2021-06-07 19:17:57204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/5852/283656

2552732023581084

• une approche intégrée, interdisciplinaire et exploratoire a été adoptée pour tracer les voies vers des systèmes alimentaires durables, un ensemble diversifié de groupes de parties prenantes a été invité à participer au dialogue ; • les participants qui se joignent au Dialogue ont une gamme de profils et d’expériences, une attention particulière a été accordée à l’implication des groupes de parties prenantes qui ne participent normalement pas aux dialogues sur l’avenir des systèmes alimentaires ; • Des groupes de discussion de 8 à 12 personnes ont été au cœur de l’événement. Les sujets de discussions ont mis l’accent sur les éléments ci-après : • changement climatique et pandémie COVID-19 ; • Liens entre les producteurs et les consommateurs alimentaires ; • Moyens de réduire les risques associés aux maillons du système alimentaire (Production alimentaire- Transformation alimentaire- Distribution alimentaire-Consommation alimentaire-Gestion des résidus alimentaires) ; • Questions transversales : finances, innovation, connaissances autochtones autonomisation des femmes, des jeunes et des groupes marginalisés. A cet effet, des leaders de discussion efficaces ont été identifiés en fonction des critères suivants : leaders forts et encourageants de nouvelles connexions, s’assurant que tous les membres du groupe se sont entendus, aident le groupe à naviguer de manière constructive sur les questions litigieuses ; Identification des participants : les participants ont été identifiés selon les secteurs d’activités intervenants dans les systèmes alimentaires.La tenue effective du dialogue sur le renforcement des systèmes alimentaires selon les normes de production et de consommation durable en Afrique a permis de faire ressortir un ensemble de principes pour rendre les systèmes alimentaires plus forts en Afrique. Ainsi, les participants ont reconnu que les systèmes alimentaires sont complexes et sont étroitement liés et ont un impact significatif sur la santé humaine et animale, la terre, l'eau, le climat, la biodiversité, l'économie et d'autres systèmes, et leur transformation nécessite une approche systémique. Le dialogue a également permis aux participants, au regard des thématiques développées par les orateurs et des sujets de discussion de soutenir des processus et des approches multipartites inclusifs au sein des gouvernements et des communautés qui apportent des perspectives diverses, y compris des connaissances autochtones, des connaissances culturelles et des preuves fondées sur la science pour permettre aux parties prenantes de comprendre et d'évaluer les compromis potentiels et de concevoir des options politiques qui répondent à de multiples biens publics à travers ces différents systèmes. Ceci a été rendu percepeptible lors des discussions sur l’implication des connaissances autochtonnes et/ou savoirs endogènes, les déterminants de l’agroécologie, les enjeux et défis des systèmes alimentaires ainsi que sur l’agriculture familiale. Il urge de noter que les échanges menés autour des sujets de discussion/groupes thématiques ont égalment été un levier pour la mis en évidence des approches multipartites inclusifs. Il ressort également, des échanges et discussion, que le système alimentaire traditionnelle a pu se préserver du COVID 19. Ainsi, le respect de l’intégration des cultures locales dans les politiques, pratiques de production et de consommation alimentaires devient une nécessité, pour protéger et améliorer la santé, le bien-être des individus, les moyens de subsistance, la résilience des communautés, la promotion d’une bonne gestion des ressourcesOUI

Yes

234238239240241242Les dialogues indépendants ont permis de rassembler une diversité de parties prenantes, y compris des voix rarement entendues, et d’offrir aux participants une occasion importante de débattre, de collaborer et d’agir pour rendre les systèmes alimentaires durables, forts et équitables. En d’autres termes, les dialogues font partie intégrante du processus du Sommet des Nations-Unies sur les Systèmes Alimentaires (UNFSS 2021). Les dialogues offrent un moyen dynamique d'impliquer les parties prenantes impliquées dans les systèmes alimentaires pour explorer leurs rôles respectifs et comment ceux-ci pourraient être liés à d'autres pour accélérer les actions de transformation à l'appui des Objectifs de Développement Durable (ODD). Ces dialogues multipartites visent à accroître la participation et à contribuer à une compréhension commune des priorités. Ainsi les dialogues indépendants concourent à identifier des solutions durables et/ou audacieuses pour renforcer les systèmes alimentaires locaux. Plus précisément, les dialogues ont permis : - D’accompagner les acteurs clés de systèmes alimentaires dans l’acquisition de connaissances scientifiques sur les enjeux et défis liés aux systèmes alimentaires ; - d’organiser des groupes de discussions autour des sujets très pertinents ; - de dialoguer ouvertement, de manière constructive et organisée, entre les différents acteurs du système alimentaire pour identifier les solutions audacieuses et/ou durables pour le renforcement des systèmes alimentaires locaux ; - D’éclairer le processus du Sommet et aider à guider l’action individuelle et collective vers un avenir de l’alimentation durable, équitable et sûr ; - de mettre la question de la durabilité des systèmes alimentaires à l’agenda public et d’éclairer par le fait même le grand public sur le sujet. 2- Sujets de discussions : partager les résultats détaillés relatifs à chaque sujet de discussion (voir résultat groupe thématique) : point de vue des participants sur les actions qui sont nécessaires de toute urgence, qui devrait prendre ces mesures ? les moyens par lesquels les progrès pourraient être évalués et les défis qui pourraient être anticipés au fur et à mesure de la mise en œuvre des actions NB : commentaires sur un maximum de 10 sujets de discussion Les sujets de discussion ont porté essentiellement sur deux principaux points. Il s’est agi d’abord de l’acquisition des connaissances scientifiques sur les enjeux et défis liés aux systèmes alimentaires puis les échanges, partage d’expériences et points de vue sur les principaux sujets ayant fait objet de discussion entre les principaux participants venus de de différents pays Africains dont le Bénin, Burkina-Faso et la République Démocratique de Congo (RDC).235238239240241242- Produire et vivre de l’agriculture ; La production agricole est à la base de tout système alimentaire. C’est la première étape qui consiste à extraire un produit comestible de différents milieux, soit par l’agriculture ou la pêche, en vue de le transformer, de le consommer ou de le commercialiser. Cependant les changements climatiques bouleversent les façons de faire et ajoutent une pression sur la disponibilité de la ressource en eau, en plus de favoriser l’arrivée de nouvelles espèces envahissantes (insectes ravageurs, mauvaises herbes, maladies etc.).L’ensemble du secteur agricole doit toutefois faire face à des exigences, à des pressions et à des changements sans précédent. Quelles sont les actions à prendre maintenant pour assurer le maintien et augmenter la capacité productive tout en respectant l’environnement ?  Protéger le territoire et les activités agricoles Le territoire agricole est une ressource non renouvelable. Chaque hectare de sol cultivable urbanisé est perdu. Ainsi selon l’Organisation des Nations-Unies pour l’Alimentation et l’Agriculture (FAO), Il faut environ 1000 ans pour qu’un centimètre de sol ne se reconstitue, ce qui signifie que nous ne serons pas en mesure de produire plus de sol de notre vivant.C’est pourquoi des initiatives, assurant non seulement la pérennité de la vocation agricole, mais également de la propriété des terres doivent être promues dans les différents pays Africains.  Gérer les ressources naturelles L’agriculture requiert de nombreuses ressources, tant naturelles, humaines que techniques. La plus importante, à la base même de l’activité agricole, est la terre. L’eau, le sol, les intrants et les infrastructures constituent les autres ressources fondamentales pour assurer sa pratique. Ainsi l’eau et le sol doivent faire objet d’une très bonne gestion afin de permettre à l’agriculteur et/ou paysan et/ou producteur ainsi que consommateur final de jouir des biens faits de l’agriculture et de lutter contre la faim.  Développer et mettre à l’échelle de nouvelles technologies et innovations agricoles pour la résilience des systèmes de production et exploitations familiales ainsi que pour la préservation de la santé des agroécosystèmes, des animaux, celle de l’homme et la biodiversité ainsi que la réduction pertes post-récolte Avec les changements climatiques, les besoins en eau des plantes et/ou cultures pourraient augmenter et des investissements en infrastructures, technologies et innovations agricoles pourraient ainsi être nécessaires pour faire face aux périodes de sécheresse, inondations, d’attaques sévères des nuisibles et combler les manques. Tenant compte de l’augmentation de la fréquence des événements climatiques extrêmes, Les conséquences sont variables selon l’intensité et conduisent à des pertes de rendement et de qualité, voire à la perte totale de certaines récoltes. Par exemple, lorsque les sécheresses et/ou inondations surviennent, elles entraînent non seulement des pertes économiques considérables, mais aussi la perte complète des récoltes. Ainsi, le recours à des technologies et innovations agricoles vertes, telles que l’agroécologie, l’agriculture intelligente au climat et/ou les variétés intelligentes au climat, s’avère nécessaire non seulement pour le maintien de conditions assurant la santé des sols et la réduction de la nécessité de recourir à des intrants de synthèse mais aussi pour traiter conjointement les trois objectifs de lutte contre les changements climatiques : la réduction des émissions de Gaz à Effet de Serre (GES) , la séquestration du carbone et l’adaptation au climat futur au sein des systèmes de production et exploitations familiales. En effet, un traitement conjoint permettrait d’éviter les situations dites de « mal-adaptation » (adoption de mesures d’adaptation qui, par exemple, favoriseraient une augmentation des émissions de GES). Cette action vise également la cohabitation-biodiversité. En effet, la biodiversité, ou la diversité biologique, se définit comme l’importance de la variété des différents organismes vivants dans un milieu donné. Une grande diversité témoigne d’un écosystème en bonne santé. Celle-ci peut notamment être améliorée en allongeant le cycle de rotation des cultures (plus de culture en rotation sur une même parcelle). La biodiversité sera aussi favorisée en accordant certains espaces au milieu naturel afin qu’il puisse exercer ses fonctions. Les effets bénéfiques d’un équilibre entre les activités agricoles et l’écosystème dans lequel elles se pratiquent sont connus. La biodiversité peut être utile à l’agriculture comme dans le cas de la pollinisation de nombreuses plantes ou le contrôle des insectes nuisibles par les oiseaux et les amphibiens. Toutefois, la présence de certaines espèces animales peut conduire à des enjeux de cohabitation plus ou moins importants. Par exemple, les chevreuils en surpopulation peuvent occasionner des dommages très néfastes aux cultures ainsi qu’aux vergers. Le manque d’incitatifs encourageant les propriétaires à laisser une partie de leurs terres à l’état naturel, au bénéfice de la biodiversité et de la collectivité, est un frein majeur. Les espaces laissés à l’état naturel, particulièrement lorsqu’ils se trouvent en terres privées cultivables, sont parfois perçus comme improductifs et sources d’un manque à gagner. La reconnaissance et la rétribution financière par la collectivité des biens et services écologiques pourraient être une façon de remédier à cette perception.  Soutenir les différents acteurs intervenant dans les systèmes alimentaires236238239240241242o Point de vue des participants sur les actions qui sont nécessaires de toute urgence, qui devrait prendre ces mesures ? moyens par lesquels les progrès pourraient être évalués et défis qui pourraient être anticipés au fur et à mesure de la mise en œuvre des actions pour faire face aux défis et/ou enjeux du Changement climatique et pandémie COVID 19  Actions qui sont nécessaires de toute urgence Il faudra : • Apporter une assistance humanitaire aux populations en crises et vulnérables ; • Prévenir la mal nutrition chez les enfants et les femmes enceintes ; • Mise en place des initiatives de résilience pour les communautés ; • Mise en place des organes d’alertes et de prise en charge des impacts de la crise ; • Renforcer la résilience et les capacités d’adaptation face aux aléas climatiques et aux catastrophes naturelles liée au climat ; • Incorporer des mesures relatives aux changements climatiques dans les politiques, les stratégies et la planification nationales ; • Améliorer l’éducation, la sensibilisation et les capacités individuelles et institutionnelles en ce qui concerne l’adaptation aux changements climatiques, l’atténuation de leurs effets et la réduction de leur impact, et les systèmes d’alerte rapide ;  Moyen par lesquels les progrès pourraient être évalués L’indice de développement humain se révèle être comme un outil d’évaluation des progrès. En effet, cet outil sert à mesurer les progrès réalisés à long terme dans trois dimensions fondamentales : une vie longue et en bonne santé, l’accès aux connaissances et un niveau de vie décent.  Défis qui pourraient être anticipés • Impulser une dynamique volontaire vertueuse pour pouvoir réviser les objectifs d’atténuation ; • Adopter les mesures en faveur d’une croissance bleue ; une économie verte ; • Adopter des mesures conduisant à des réformes politiques, juridiques et institutionnelles en faveur d’une gouvernance efficace ; • Promouvoir des mécanismes de renforcement des capacités afin que le Cameroun se dote de moyens efficaces de planification et de gestion pour faire face aux changements climatiques, l’accent doit être mis sur les femmes, les jeunes, la population locale et les groupes marginalisés. Il serait donc prioritaire que toutes ces actions soient effectives dans le respect des normes d’équités et principes d’une bonne gouvernance afin de rendre l’économie plus viable et vivable pour toutes les communautés.237240Stimuler la production alimentaire à grande échelle positive pour la nature : quelle approche pour renforcer les systèmes alimentaires pour des normes de production et de consommation durable ? : Globalement, l’agriculture familiale a montré sa formidable capacité d’adaptation au travers les siècles malgré les guerres, les crises économiques, les famines et les catastrophes naturelles. Cette résilience trouve notamment sa source dans les caractéristiques de la structure familiale : solidarité, abnégation, dévouement, volonté de transmettre son patrimoine et ses savoirs, acceptation de contraintes temporaires en cas de besoin. Les producteurs pratiquant l’agriculture familiale, grâce à leur enracinement local et à connaissance approfondie qu’ils ont de leurs territoires, constituent des foyers d’innovations empiriques adaptées à leurs contextes locaux respectifs. Elles contribuent également au développement économique de ces territoires en favorisant le maintien voire la création de circuits de commercialisation cohérents avec les économies locales. Malgré ses multiples vertus, l’agriculture familiale est pourtant menacée en Afrique. Elle reste vulnérable face à la pandémie de Covid 19 et le changement climatique sur tous les plans. En outre, il serait opportun de réfléchir à des stratégies de résilience à travers les mesures agroécologiques qui permettront à l’agriculture familiale d’être plus durable. Par contre, l’état des lieux révèle que le système alimentaire Africain est véritablement vulnérable au Covid19 mais néanmoins le système alimentaire traditionnel a pu se préserver. D’où l’installation d’une confiance entre les acteurs autour de système alimentaire territoriale. L’agriculture biologique serait une solution qu’il convient aux producteurs pour un système alimentaire durable.

2021-06-08 00:17:15204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/6387/203

822204012533151033617028024010220302210113520020040223432

The organization of this Africa Region Food Systems Dialogue "Re-imagining Africa's Food Systems Transformation through Data, Advocacy, and Leadership" was largely adherent to the Food Systems Summit Principles of Engagement. First, deliberate efforts were made to ensure diversity (regional/geographic representation, as well as food systems stakeholder/sector representation). In this regard, Dialogue participants were identified through the following approaches. • Vigorous publicity about the Dialogue, open dissemination of Dialogue details and registration portal for parties to express interest. This included wise use of social media like Twitter with the announcements being retweeted several times • Deliberate/purposive solicitations sent to key food systems stakeholders/actors using a maximum variation sampling (stakeholder, sectors, region/geography, demographics, etc). • Purposive identification of facilitators from all regions of Africa (West, South, North, East, and Diaspora), as well as key partners from the Global North whose work relate to food systems in Africa. On the day of the Dialogue, Dialogue Conveners, Curators, and Facilitators reiterated and reinforced the Food Systems Summit Principles of Engagement – as detailed below.We summarize below the specific actions taken to ensure our Dialogue is response to the Principles communicated in the Dialogue Conveners’ Manual. • “Act with urgency”: Recognizing the urgency with which food systems transformation actions needed to be taken, the Dialogue Conveners and Facilitators deliberately requested specific policy asks, and critical practice changes required to transform the African food systems as soon as now, and by 2030. • “Commit to the Summit”: Dialogue Conveners, Curators, Facilitators and Participants received orientation at different phases of the Dialogue preparation and execution on Dialogue Principles as well as on how to, and the need to practice what we preach personally and professionally. Including for example “leading from where you stand”, or “advocacy requires all voices, loud or not”. As part of the concluding remarks to the dialogued participants were called upon to seek opportunities to contribute to the UNFSS processes in their respective countries and also during the multiple public engagements that are announced from time to time. • “Be respectful”: Dialogue Conveners incorporated into the facilitation guidelines the need to be respectful of nature, of natural resources, of African traditional cultures, and contexts. Dialogue Facilitators reinforced these during the Dialogue. Participant choices on which breakout sessions they wished to contribute to were respected by allowing them to choose freely which session they wanted to join. • “Recognize complexity”: Cognisant of the fact that food systems are complex and are impacted largely by the actions and inactions of humans, Dialogue Facilitators engaged participants in discussions that facilitated identification of multiple-duty innovations/actions that can influence different parts of this complex system. Addressing data needs for monitoring and evaluation of food systems transformation, and for the related advocacy and strategic leadership to foster positive transformation recognized the complexity of food systems.The Conveners of this Regional Independent Food Systems Dialogue would like to share the following to other Dialogue Convenors (especially those who are yet to implement their Dialogues) • Pre-dialogue engagements are crucial: - Engage potential participants on the nature and expectations of the Dialogue, as well as the Dialogue Principles of Engagement prior to the event. • Dedicate time to highlight the nature and expectations of the Dialogue, as well as the outlined principles of engagement on the day of the Dialogue • Plan ahead of time but be prepared to think on your toes and act on the spur of the moment. Our Dialogue initially planned to hold 3 parallel discussion sessions on the day of the Dialogue. Upon assessing the number of registrants/dialogue participants on the day, the Dialogue Conveners innovatively duplicated the discussion rooms from 3 to 6 – to accommodate all interested participants without violating the group size (of 8 – 12) communicated in the Dialogue Manuel. This was possible because each group had originally been allocated to facilitators and a notetaker all of whom received facilitation orientation. • Have the required background information for the ‘Official Feedback Form’ recorded via the online registration portal • Remember “photo taking” or screen shots can be done via Zoom. We found the shots taken helpful.

Yes

234238239241242243244246247248249250This Regional Dialogue convened by the Measurement, Evaluation, Accountability, and Leadership Support for NCDs (MEALS4NCDs) Prevention Project/ African Food Environment Research Network (FERN) – in partnership with the African Population and Health Research Center (APHRC), Réseaude Recherchesurles Politiquesetles Systèmes Alimentairesen Afriquedel'Ouest (REPSAO), African Nutrition Society (ANS), Federation of African Nutrition Societies (FANUS), Coalition of Actors for Public Health Advocacy (CAPHA), IFPRI-led CGIAR-Research Program on Agriculture for Nutrition and Health (A4NH), Rockefeller Foundation’s-led Food Systems Transformative Integrated Policy (FS-TIP), Drivers of Food Choice Program (DFC), Agriculture, Nutrition and Health Academy (ANH Academy), Chronic Diseases Initiative for Africa (CDIA), & the African Union Development Agency(AUDA-NEPAD) examined how “Data, Advocacy, Accountability, Governance, Leadership, and Leadership Support” can be exploited to help “Transform the African Food Systems”. The discussions covered all areas and were organized around three questions: a) What policy actions or critical practice changes do we want various food system actors (e.g., governments, private sector, academia; farmers, etc.) to adopt to transform the African Food Systems –by 2030?; b) How do we use Advocacy, Accountability Science, Governance, Leadership and Leadership Support to facilitate these transformation of Africa’s food systems? c) Who will need to be involved and what specific actions do we require of them? • Participants examined the current African Food Systems – identifying gaps in, and impediment to data availability, timeliness, quality, data management and overall usability. These are crucial for Food Systems Transformation. • There was consensus on the need to integrate national or regional data, build stronger data repositories, communicate and interpret data in ways that could translate into policies and also “leaves no one behind”. • Emphasis was placed on transparency in relation to the kind of data, data curation, data custodianship, access to, storage, and use of data. • On advocacy and accountability science, participants deliberated on important tools that could prompt national agricultural and food systems transformation, trade policies, food and nutrition security policies to meet the nutritional demands of the population and support livelihoods while protecting the environment. • Participants favored advocacy strategies that are consumer driven, demands transparency and accountability, and co-create knowledge that translates into the right policy actions for lasting food systems change. • Furthermore, leadership, , and collaborations were emphasized as key in harmonizing, and regulating, all aspects of the food systems that could foster policy implementation to deliver sustainable healthy diets to both human and planetary health. • Participants examined the value of inclusive leadership in addressing inequities. Provision of liability protection to vulnerable farmers, especially, small and medium holder farmers who form a large percentage of Africa’s agriculture was highlighted.235238239241242243244246247248249250The breakout sessions were ably facilitated and yielded rich insights. Facilitators effectively managed the sessions such that all participants could ask questions and contribute to the discussion questions. The discussions produced the following key findings: The need to establish a clear strategic plan for food systems data. Data is “the lifeblood of decision-making and the raw material for accountability”. A clear road map for data is needed in Africa. At the moment, there’s an ad hoc approach to data collection and use across Africa. There should be institutionalization of data, where various Government agencies and the private sector can share data on what is happening in the food system. This is important to effectively monitor and direct the transformation in a positive direction. Data financing. Government agencies and the private sector need to find resources to build local capacity for data. Measurements/data generation is costly. The use of technology in gathering data. Use Artificial Intelligence (AI) to link “producers”/”sellers” in the food systems to “consumers”/”buyers” in the system so that consumers can contribute to the production decision-making. Second, AI can be used in drone farming to enhance agriculture operation, to monitor movement of cattle, and facilitate vertical farming. Transparency and accountability in sharing of data. Data should be made accessible to all the actors along the food systems and the private sector should share their rich sources of data for food systems decision-making. Bridging the advocacy gap. All food systems actors should be involved in creating the needed awareness to transform food systems. Awareness and sensitization of what exists in Africa for Africa is important in promoting advocacy and accountability. Advocate for strong regulation of the food environment. Governments need to have tighter control in the food system. We need to advocate for countries to link trade policies and food and nutrition security policies to the nutritional needs of the population. Advocate for legislation and harmonization of standards that are transparent and accountable to control the markets and promote healthy lifestyle changes related to food consumption patterns. Advocate for transparency of the food environment. Inequities in the food environment should be corrected to allow access to fair marketing, competition and capital investment for SMEs. Consumer driven advocacy. Industry often responds to public demands or the demands of the consumer. The current “Transform the Food Systems Movement” could learn from that. Involvement of Celebrities in building demands for sustainable, healthy and safe diets should be considered. The need for Champions/Food Systems Heroes. Participants believe that in every leadership situation, there should be key actors such as the government leaders, community actors, nutrition champions, policy entrepreneurs, academics and other relevant stakeholders who will contribute to a holistic food system. Inclusive leadership from government, media, civil society, and public health experts is needed. This should involve the community and the people at the grassroots levels from all sectors of the food system to enhance ownership and sustainability. Farmers are often left out in the formulation of policies that affect agriculture, yet they are the major stakeholders. Collaboration among Food Systems Actors: Important factors brought up multiple times is the need for innovation, transparency, accountability, and stronger partnership between science, the private and public sectors, farmers and other various stakeholders across food systems. Network all food systems actors. Food systems actors do not know they are in the same system with others. Networking among actors from various sectors and levels of the food chain will enhance sharing of ideas and also facilitate collaboration.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250• Topic 1. Finding a clear roadmap for gathering quality data: Data financing; use of technology in gathering data; and transparency and accountability in sharing of data • The need to establish a clear strategic plan for data. Data is “the lifeblood of decision-making and the raw material for accountability” and for leading the changes required. A clear road map for data is needed in Africa. At the moment there’s an ad hoc approach to data collection and use across Africa. Africa needs a model that takes from an unstructured approach to data to a prepared, demonstrated, intelligent proven model. Moving from ad hoc to prepared data model could take 10 years. When this is realized, there should be institutionalization of data, where various Government agencies and the private sector can share data on what is happening in in the food system. Participants agreed it was important to engage and explore with national statistics agencies to improve data collection strategies. These are the institutions through which Food Balance Sheet Data on agriculture, Demographic and Health Surveys and Income and Expenditure Surveys are currently collected • Data financing. Government should allocate both institutional and financial resources; and the private sector must put together mechanisms of contributing resources to building local capacity for data. Measurements/data generation is costly. • The use of technology in gathering data. Use Artificial Intelligence (AI) to link “producers”/”sellers” in the food systems to “consumers”/”buyers” in the system so that consumers can contribute to the production decision-making. Second, AI can be used in drone farming technologies to enhance agriculture operation, to monitor movement of cattle, and facilitate vertical farming. • Transparency and accountability in sharing of data. Data should be made accessible to all the actors across food systems and the private sector should share their rich sources of data for food systems decision-making. • There should be a clear and deliberate roadmap for food systems data collection. This involves the use of data to guide actions and policies (on all components of the food system). The role of data in informing policies for better food systems cannot be overstated. Food systems actions, practices, and policies must be evidence-informed. Advocacy informed by data can play a role in promoting development on positive policy instruments. • All food systems actors (including SMEs) should be involved in the data value chain. They need data to help monitor actions or inactions of food systems actors, and to help facilitate the transformations that we request of our food systems. • Diets are primary endpoint in food systems. But there is scarce data on diets, in national food systems and sub-national food systems. The following questions are important: Can we track with robust indicators of diet quality? Can we monitor diet quality on ongoing basis? How do we know that the population is eating? How do we know that the population is healthy? We need data to answer all these questions. We need data for planning, and also for decision-making at every level of the food systems. • Data can give voice to the voiceless. • Also, data is very important in influencing politicians. For instance, the moment food insecurity data is released, politicians get so involved because the data can influence their votes. So if there is data on how many people have access to healthy foods. They will be very much involved/interested.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250Topic 2. Collaboration among the government sectors, academia, and the private sectors should be fostered: • Such collaborations can help address gaps that currently exist between these actors due to differences in their approaches. • In the past, policies drafted left out farmers meanwhile food security is guaranteed by farmers. • All stakeholders have unique and important roles to play. Policy makers and researchers should work together to have more evidence build a better understanding of food systems. The academia will do research, the private investor will invest, but we need the farmers as well. If the small-scale farmers who are important players of the economy are left out in foods systems decision making, this will perpetuate current inequities. • Private sector must be more engaged by working closely with researchers and policy makers to improve food systems. They have valuable consumer insights that are effective in promotion of their products (whether healthy or not). Such insights should be leveraged to bring about improved food consumption patterns for better nutrition and health and environmental sustainability. • Food environments are changing - but so are built environments, cities and food supply systems. Collaboration and synergizing can help generate the near real-life data needed to appreciate and respond to these changes. • Food environments are gendered. For example, the role of informal food environments where women are the majority who are selling and buying. Policies must account for the gendered components in food environments.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250Topic 3. Use of important technological application is crucial: • The use of technological application is crucial in transforming food systems. • The Group identified different ways in which technology use can be critical. • Technology to preserve the nutritional values of food either by processing foods through freezing or drying, • Use technology to increase the shelf life of certain perishable products like fruits and vegetables through the use of some technological means. • There was a suggestion for artificial intelligence to be used, e.g., AI can be used to link farmers to producers and sellers. It can also be used to track data.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250Participants from the breakout rooms highlighted the following action areas: • Making use of incentives: What are the incentives for doing the right thing? Smart incentives and disincentives need to be created to align actors in sectors of the food system. • SMEs play large role in Africa food systems and should be provided with incentives for producing healthy, safe and sustainable food. • Perhaps there needs to be a combo of incentives and disincentives. • Disincentives such as making plastic bags expensive so people bring their own cloth bags can also be created. Strategic Policies that will enable SMEs to compete with multilateral organization should be formulated. • Food retailers equally need to understand their role in the food system. When adequately informed, their decisions may influence the food industry to churn forth better products. • The government should regulate the food retail environment. There should be regulatory standards for the food retail environment. For instance, its tax incentives, etc. in order to increase access to healthy foods. • Enforcement of legislative instruments: We do not have strong regulations and standards on food safety and types of additives. Laws should be enforced to ensure food safety standards and apply labelling regulations on food items. There should also be stronger regulation around food advertisement, media, including billboards.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250Topic 5. Building demand for advocacy: It is the responsibility of all of us to create the needed awareness to transform the food system. The following actions were highlighted: • Regulatory organizations need to actively be involved in communication, dissemination of information to support advocacy efforts. • Use consumer driven advocacy: Often industry responds to public demand or the demands of the consumer. Advocacy efforts could be used to change food consumption preferences by consumers. • Make consumers aware of the health and nutrition benefits. • Use evidence and science to advocate to consumers: industry would respond to science by making highly nutritious foods available because that is what consumers prefer. An example was shared about the demand for organic traditional foods in Egypt by “high class” individuals. • Industry could lead advocacy of organic foods. Avoidance can also be a strong advocacy strategy, e.g., avoid certain foods. • Re-discovery of lost foods and cooking methods; undiscovered traditional foods ways of cooking that are healthy can be promoted. Recipes with high nutritional value e.g., Quinoa, Fonio and healthy cooking methods could be used as advocacy tools and not only scientific data. • National agricultural transformation: we need to advocate for countries to link national agricultural transformation, trade policies, food and nutrition security policies to the nutritional needs of the population; • Because agriculture is so seasonal, there is a need for a type of policy investment that can be made to find ways to either process foods through freeze drying and other types of technology that preserve the nutritional values. • Need to create awareness by both producers and consumers regarding seasonality of foods. You cannot expect to eat certain products when they are off season. • Build demand advocacy: building demand within the marketplace- the consumer demand for healthy foods; there can be social marketing with celebrities to promote particular products or types of food. Any food system transformation will involve a certain shift in public perception and demand in certain foods. So more of a higher-level strategy to build demand for healthy sustainable diets that align with some of the policy instruments that might be used to improve what is available in the market. • If you need Governments to act, you have to speak in the language that the Government understands. Until governments see the food system issues as having a significant positive or negative impact on the economy, they may not act. Food systems issues are economic issues for governments; food systems issues must be health issues. We need to talk about food systems in terms of people, in terms of dollars, in terms of lives lost or saved. • We need to rationalize, empathize, and humanize the food system conversation/narrative • Healthy foods are not always236238239240241242243244245246247248249250Topic 6. Sustainability of programmes and projects for food system: Programmes and projects at all levels and sectors along the food systems need to be sustained. The discussions identified certain solutions that will ensure sustainability; • Build capacity of local leaders on various actors of the food systems value chain. • Local experts and community food systems actors should be linked to the state institutions in a way that engages them in various planning and execution of food systems actions. The government, the private sector as well as the academia need to support this process. • Advocacy for sustainability: Farmers, Civil society, and other food systems actors need to create awareness regarding seasonality of foods. The UN food systems summit dialogues should evolve into a permanent entity/forum or ongoing advocacy that is inclusive (comprising all food systems actors and not just CSOs) to bring voices from food systems toward private and public sectors • Climate change and sustainability framing - in US and Europe, humans are told they are the cause of climate change, in terms of their excessive consumption behaviors. In Africa, natural disasters/water shortages/stresses/low rainfall/environmental problems affect food systems. Thus, framing plays a role in how food systems have to be reimagined and how data should be collected, because dialogues relevant in one setting may not be relevant in other settings.236238239240241242243244245246247248249250Topic 7. Inclusive leadership and networking There should be a responsible and inclusive leadership so that people at the grassroots are included in policy making and also educated on the existence of these policies. • Inclusive leadership from government, media, civil society, and public health experts is needed. This should involve the community and the people at the grassroots levels from all sectors of the food system to enhance ownership and sustainability. • Farmers are often left out in the formulation of policies that affect agriculture, yet they are the major stakeholders. • Leaders need to network and share ideas to collaborate on projects. • Communication must be bi-directional, from leaders to stakeholders and the grassroots members. • Leaders must be attentive and build capacity so the populace can be competent and independent. • Government leaders should ensure capacity building and knowledge dissemination; community actors can engage in building capacity, e.g., Chiefs can provide storage facilities for farmers, whiles nutrition champions and policy entrepreneurs need to be supported. • To monitor food systems transformation in Africa, Africa needs to develop a national or regional index/classification of countries based on their food systems transformation efforts. • We need a platform for leaders to speak to each other and understand each other. • For continuity and sustainability, leaders do not have to be political leaders. All Food systems actors can play leadership roles. Leader from where you stand. • Inaccessibility to land for women and youth are leadership failures: Government policies on land ownership, and use are discriminatory. It would take bold leaders to change this.237238239240241242243244245246247248249250There were some points of divergence: • On the question of who is in charge of collecting data? Two strong opposing views were advanced. One was that Leadership/government is responsible for overall strategy for data collection, data protection, and the financing of it. Governments have to buy into the vision and be held accountable to it. They have to put policies in place across different levels of their countries. They are ultimately responsible. The second view on the contrary indicated that private sector is also responsible for collection of data. Government sector alone cannot do it. • A participant suggested that a disruptive advocacy (for example non-importation of certain foods) should apply to foods that are produced in or available in African countries. Advocating for this could serve to encourage the consumption of local foods. Overall, the future for Africa is to depend on itself for food supply. Another participant fervently disagreed, indicating that disruptive advocacy is not the solution, but what needs to be advocated for is for countries to link national agricultural transformation, trade policies, food and nutrition security policies to the nutritional needs of the population. • The tension between the proponents of technology such as artificial intelligence (AI) by farmers and the opponents. The proponents advanced the view that technology will help with data capturing, e.g., AI could link farmers on the ground to food producers and buyers to help them know what is selling and what is not. But the opposing view intimated the use of AI could be very bad especially if not used properly – especially when it is not clear who/what/when/how data should or could be used. Would need to have that information upfront. • The trade-offs regarding the role celebrities could play to help promote the Food System. There was a suggestion for celebrities to use their influence to promote food system transformation. However, some participants felt involving celebrities may only lead to popularization which is not necessarily transformation. • Finally, there was the question of why the private sector is not engaging as expected, and yet they have too much data that they cannot even manage. They should be more open in sharing data. However, others noted that the private sector actors are business minded; they are interested in the bottom lines, or their profits and so if engaging will not lead to this why should they? Others felt that was their responsibility to engage and serve not just their board of directors, but their clients- all humans. The participant mooted the idea of decolonialization of data and destabilization of information asymmetries if we need to truly transform our food systems.

2021-06-08 08:57:20205Stage 3https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/23722/69

7295571264624773222421113122215108126

The Fiji National Dialogue was divided into five separate Action Track dialogues, each focusing on a specific Action Track. This report refers exclusively to Action Track 1 – Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all. The Fiji National Dialogue for Action Track 1 was curated by the Fiji Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) and led by the Fiji Convenor, the Permanent Secretary for Agriculture, Mr Ritesh Dass. Technical support for the curation of the dialogue was provided by the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) and World Food Programme (WFP) offices in Suva, Fiji. Recognizing and observing the UNFSS Principles of Engagement, a series of highly consultative, inclusive, preparatory meetings were held in the lead-up to the dialogue with key government ministries and partners such as the Ministry of Health and Medical Services, the National Food and Nutrition Committee and Ministry of Agriculture as Convenor. The preparatory meetings developed the dialogue agenda, framed questions and topics for discussion, developed a group reporting template to focus and guide group discussions and identified themes for discussion across three strands (i) Reducing Hunger (ii) Access to Nutritious Food (iii) Safe Food. The Action Track 1 dialogue was Chaired by the Fiji Ministry of Health and Medical Services, who also led the three main presentations. The prep meetings highlighted the Summit’s Principles of Engagement and ensured that they were understood and incorporated into the format of the dialogue agenda and the identification of participants. In addition to this, participants were sent a URL to register online where they were required to read and agree to the Principles before being able to register. This ensured that everyone read and understood the Principles and committed to the SDGs before participating in the Dialogue. A group of 72 stakeholders participated in the Dialogue from diverse, multi stakeholder backgrounds consisting of government ministries, civil society, international and regional agencies (including UN agencies), academia and other key actoAs highlighted above, the Fiji national dialogue on Action Track 1 ensured that the UNFSS seven Principles of Engagement were observed throughout the dialogue curation process and its preparatory meetings. They were reflected in the development of the dialogue agenda and in the careful selection of participants from a diverse range of stakeholders. The need to (i) act with urgency, (ii) commit to the Summit and show (iii) respect for all views and individuals were highlighted throughout the dialogue preparatory process, and were endorsed by stakeholders during the dialogue as well. The (iv) acknowledgement of complexity in our food systems was highlighted, particularly in the context of Fiji and the Pacific, where the food we eat not only brings together as families and communities – it also connects us back to the land and sea, where our food is traditionally sourced from. Transformation therefore, would require a systemic multi-stakeholder approach, taking into account the fragility of our food systems and unique vulnerabilities to factors such as climate, environment, biodiversity and food safety challenges etc. (v) Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity (vi) Complement the work of others – This was reflected in the diverse group of 72 participants who were part of the multi-stakeholder national dialogue - from areas of science, business, policy, healthcare and academia, farmers, youth and women’s organisations, consumer groups and environmental activists. The dialogue provided an opportunity to ‘think outside the box’ and share innovative thinking, connect stakeholders and broaden partnerships. (vii) Build trust - The dialogues was curated and facilitated in a way to ensure a “safe space”, promote trust and encourage mutual respect for ideas and discussion.The Summit Principles of Engagement served as important guidance for Fiji in the curation of its dialogues across all five Action Tracks, including the National Dialogue. The Principles encouraged Fiji to think innovative, transformative and to draw on the wisdom of a diverse group of stakeholders and partners to explore solutions in our food systems, and to help advance progress on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In addition, the Principles were used to guide different stages of Fiji’s dialogue preparatory process and assisted in the identification of participants and stakeholders to ensure inclusivity and diversity. The Principles also assisted in facilitating discussions to ensure that all views were heard and respected and that any divergent views arising at any stage of the process were taken into consideration, listened to with respect and recorded.

NoThe Fiji national dialogue on Action Track 1 – Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all was held on 10 May, 2021 at a crucial time as the country battled its second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. This makes this Food Systems Summit even more crucial to Fiji as it enables the country to study the challenges exposed or exacerbated by the COVID crisis and to find transformative solutions to emerge and build back. Curation and Methodology ─ In compliance with the country’s COVID-19 restrictions, the Fiji national dialogue was virtually curated on the Zoom platform, using a participatory method of wide, multi-sectoral stakeholder engagement. In addition, interaction and crowdsourcing platforms such as Slido, polls and the Zoom chat box were also used to crowdsource questions and engage participants in live polls and quizzes throughout the duration of the four-hour dialogue. Seventy-two participants took part in the dialogue. They represented government ministries, development agencies, UN agencies, civil society, international institutions, Pacific regional agencies, women’s groups, international NGOs and academia. Prior to the dialogue, participants received the following from the Secretariat: (i) Invitation to participate in the dialogue (ii) Dialogue Agenda (iii) Relevant resource materials (reading materials, video links etc) (iv) Reporting template identifying questions and topics for discussion groups Dialogue Format ─ Registration of participants (online in advance and on the day itself) ─ Official opening address by the Fiji Convenor ─ Setting the Scene What is the UN World Food Systems Summit 2021? (Video on the Summit by Dr Agnes Kalibata) ─ What is a Food System? (Examination of existing Fiji and Pacific food systems, including strengths and vulnerabilities) ─ Presentations on Action Track 1 ─ Poverty and inequality – Ministry of Agriculture ─ Access to Nutritious Food - Ministry of Health and Medical services (MoHMS) ─ Safe Food – MoHMS ─ Discussion groups on themes and questions focused on questions such as (i) What are the main poverty issues in Fiji? (ii) Is inequality an issue? Who are worse off? (iii) What are the transformations needed in Fiji’s current Food System in order to address this? (iv) What opportunities are needed for increasing incomes across the food system? Social protection? (v) What barriers have prevented this? ─ Participation and Engagement – Through crowdsourcing using Slido questions, live polls, zoom chat, zoom breakout discussion groups, plenary reports/discussions and presentations. Group reporting templates were also shared with participants to review following the dialogue to allow them the opportunity to include any information that may have been missed out by rapporteurs ─ Communications and media ─ The outcomes of the dialogue and key messages from the Fiji Convenor were highlighted in a Press Release issued to the media which received extensive coverage by local mainstream media and on social media platforms (Facebook and Twitter). UNFSS hashtags #UNFSS @foodsystems #SDGs and #foodsystems were used in all media content to ensure that messaging had a multiplier effect. Links to media coverage are included in the Attachments section at the end of this report.

234238243246248249The Dialogue focused on a comprehensive exploration of Fiji’s food systems as follows: 1. Access to Nutritious Food, Ministry of Health & Medical Services The nutritional situation of Fiji’s population is determined by data collected from the decennial National Nutrition Survey (latest 2015) and the food availability information from the Food Balance Sheet. Dietary pattern is shifting away from the traditional diet of root crops to more of a cereal-based diet. Starchy staples of root crops provided 22% of total energy in the diet while cereal-based foods contributed 38% to the total dietary energy per day. Fiji has high dependency on food imports where 69% of calories were imported while only 31% was sourced locally in 2010. Fiji is burdened with Non-Communicable Diseases, Communicable Diseases and Micronutrient deficiencies such as anaemia. In the last 10 years, anaemia is still a problem in all age groups from children under 5 years (63%), 5-14 years (45%), 15-17years (43.5%), adult 18 years and above male (32.4%) and female (48.2%) and pregnant women (40%). 2. Poverty and Inequality, Ministry of Agriculture The poverty result of the 2019-20 Household Income and Expenditure Survey was addressed. At national level, the proportion of people living below the poverty line was 29.9%. More people in the rural areas (41.5%) compared to urban areas (20.4%) are living below the poverty line Household heads who have more members in the household are found to be poor. The average household size for poor households is 5.6 while non-poor households is 3.9. The same trend is also observed between poor and non-poor households in urban and rural areas. Poverty rates were also high with household heads that did not complete at least primary education. By employment sector, more poor households are employed with non-subsistence agriculture sector (44%) in comparison to agriculture subsistence sector (41%). People who live with a household head that is employed in the private sector have higher poverty rates than those in public sector. In observing the relationship between agriculture and poverty in Fiji, it was found that 41.4% of the rural population live below the poverty line, whereas 73.4% of the rural population lives in agricultural households. In terms of rural households, 45.5% of rural households live below the poverty line, while 86.6% of these rural households are agricultural households. This reiterates the need to develop the agricultural sector to alleviate poverty in Fiji. 3. Safe Food, Ministry of Health & Medical Services The burden of food borne diseases in the Pacific showed that unsafe food has caused many acute and chronic diseases, with more than 200 diseases spread through food. In Fiji 14 cases and 2 hospital admissions of food borne diseases were reported in 2018. Some key aspects proposed for the discussion include enabling policy and regulatory standards to protect consumers, upgrading and accreditation of current laboratories for testing foods for monitoring and compliance purposes, creating more awareness and collaboration on enforcement to relevant stakeholders, multi-sector collaboration to enable more participation for wet markets to farmers markets, more awareness and understanding of evidence-based approach for food safety, empower consumer voices and innovations in the food safety system. Food safety challenges include limited resources, limited knowledge and understanding with decision and policy makers on Food Safety, multi-sectoral strategy on ensuring food safety.235238243248249Main findings and conclusions A summary of the main outcomes of the Group Discussions is reported in the next section, however, below are additional findings across the three thematic areas: 1. Reduce Food Insecurity Fiji needs to transform its mindset by focusing on a whole of society approach and build capacities on systems thinking. There is a need to identify linkages, break silos, improve food supply chain (market, transport, infrastructure etc) and reposition and market healthy foods to make them more appealing. There is also a need to relook at government policies to support transformation. Opportunities to increase income across the food systems need to be reconstructed and rebuilt to identify the root causes of poverty. There is a need to invest more in the next generation in communities while addressing policies. 2. Increase Access to Nutritious Food Access to healthy foods is an issue in Fiji, with different reasons identified in the Dialogue, as those related to regulations, need to boost national production, infrastructure and high costs of transport from rural to urban areas etc. The high cost of production in Fiji and exorbitant bank lending fees were also identified as barriers to access nutritious foods. Initiatives bring about change require political and should be driven by an overarching authority, as the Prime Minister’s Office. Priority investment by government should focus on agriculture and fisheries since these sectors play second fiddle to tourism. With commitment and investment, implementation can take place and boost industry by the inclusion of insurance policies for farmers, for example. We need to work with financial institutions to provide access to finance for farmers to grow our agriculture sector. 3. Safe Food Pending food safety related policies need to be approved so programmes can be implemented. Some legislation and regulations need to be reviewed as well The Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of Health need to link together closely on food safety issues and strengthening of food testing capabilities. More technology and training on food safety is required.236238243248249Strand 1 – Reducing Hunger and Inequality Lack of access to land for people to be able to grow their crops and get fresh foods is a key aspect related to poverty in Fiji. This is especially important in urban areas around informal settlements where children and pregnant women are suffering the most in terms of triple burden malnutrition. For example, obesity, anemia, underweight. Inequality, especially with vulnerable groups, worsened after COVID-19. Lack of equal opportunities, access to services e.g phone ownership, employment and resources are all impacted. The game changing solution is to look at poverty from an intersectional lens (gender, ethnicity, education, etc) to ensure no one is left behind. Fiji needs to be more inclusive and nutrition-sensitive in its policies with social protection beneficiaries and should consider basic services for people in this space. Opportunities to increase income across the food systems need to be reconstructed and rebuilt to identify the root causes of poverty and invest more in new generations within communities while addressing policies. Strand 2 – Increase Access to Nutritious Food In Fiji, people are eating more processed foods particularly in the urban areas where the media has played a big role in marketing some of these foods. In order to change that, informal markets should be linked to formal ones, changing concepts and behavior to encourage and promote eating local healthy foods. Small and Medium Enterprises should be supported for mass production of vegetables and fruits in order to ensure availability and affordability at all levels. Some ideas for the way forward included creating a robust online system throughout the value chain in the food system; increase communication access to rural areas to increase marketing opportunities and promote more involvement in the barter system. The challenge of lack of affordability was also addressed through advocating for more planting and production at all levels and Ministry of Agriculture to lead through pilot and model farms, increase tax on imported foods, improve research capacity on productivity within ministries. It is important to increase self-sufficiency and reduce heavy reliance on rice and wheat imports as well as enhancing partnerships to sustain development projects and promote diversification in communities. Legislation should be in place for any house built to have a space for backyard gardening including informal settlements. Regulations need to be reviewed to include High Fat, Sugar & Salt reduction targets to make foods healthier; review the level of fortificants on flour and monitor its iron content. Education plays an important role; the Ministry of Education may revise its curriculum to include food and nutrition security and value chain in the food system. Strand 3 – Safe Food Legislation and regulation approval processes in government are too lengthy. Food Safety Act needs to be reviewed to align with trade agreements requirements. Accessing data and information on food safety is an issue since this is not readily available. More work is required to stop heavy metal contaminants in food and water. Government officers need to be equipped to conduct food safety checks. Technology such as development of Apps is required to track and trace and ensure consumer safety. Awareness is needed on the use of pesticides for farmers and consumers and other alternatives such as home-made solutions that could be used instead of pesticides. Better coordination on reporting of food safety issues from relevant agencies on marine ecosystem as for example fish poisoning. The group identified areas or types of food that need more attention in Fiji such as local vegetables, fruits and root crops, fish and seafood, meat and livestock and food adulteration on local and imported food products. Meat handling needs more attention where illegal slaughtering of livestock is happening in the community especially for social functions or roadside sales. Pending food safety related policies need to be approved so programmes could be implemented. Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry of Health need to link together closely on food s237238243248249Culturally, Fijians and Pacific islanders are not comfortable with disagreeing with one another publicly or in a meeting setting. The Pacific way is through consensus and silence is used to signify agreement in a formal setting. Hence, there were not many issues of divergence emerging from group discussions, although we acknowledge that this may have differed had there been stakeholders with more divergent views present. The one area of divergence occurred during discussions on Strand 1 (Reducing Hunger and Inequality) and was related to land degradation and its negative impact on fisheries; conflicting policies such as poultry/ livestock rearing within residential properties which are contrary to the Public Health Act. Policies prioritizing yaqona and tobacco for economic benefits (which may favour wealthier producers) have negative social and health impacts that need to be considered.

2021-06-08 12:26:21205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/2066/85

40520151624141318526122413

The Ministry of Agriculture of Hungary organized the national dialogue in two steps: 1. Recognising the complexity of food systems and the limited timeframe for dialogue a preliminary questionnaire has been sent out, the responses have been summarized and summary was used as the basic document of the dialogue itself. 2. The virtual event of national dialogue was held on 28th of April. The title of the national dialogue was “Dialogue on achieving sustainability in food production and food consumption (economic, environmental, social impacts)”. Our aim with the dialogue was to have an overview of the current status of our food systems from the perspective of the healthy and sustainable consumption and discuss the areas where the next steps on short and long term are needed. The national dialogue was opened by the national convenor of Hungary. Recognizing the importance of complementing the work of others introductory speeches were from different institutions, such as Ministry of Agriculture, National Food Chain Safety Office, and the Ministry of Innovation and Technologies: 1. Participation of Hungary and the V4 member states in research activities on sustainable food systems. How can we involve consumers? 2. The role of the circular economy in sustainability – presentation of the new waste management system 3. Food waste – a global problem or opportunity? Then the participants of the dialogue were divided into small groups, those discussed the topic from different point of views, about the strengths and weaknesses of the national food system, about the possible game-changer initiatives and about the short-term and long-term measures that should be taken in order to improve the sustainability of the national food system, focusing more on food production and food consumption. Finally, a summary of the small groups’ discussions and the whole national dialogue took place at the plenary session.With the national dialogue we tried to promote food production and consumption policies and practices that strive to protect and improve the health and well-being of individuals. One of the main results of the dialogue was that a wide dialogue has been started between related stakeholders. We recognized that food systems are complex, and are connected to many sectors. During the dialogue we realized that food systems are addressed through several governance processes; however we do not have direct insight into the work of the other ministries and competent institutions, so we will seek to avoid unnecessary duplications. We wish to encourage innovative new approaches that deliver food systems transformation in line with the Summit’s principles and objectives. In agreement with all participants we decided to continue the dialogue, as it is very useful for all involved stakeholders, and further develop the measures which are under elaboration to achieve sustainability of our food system.-

Yes

234238239240243244246248249The title of the national dialogue was “Dialogue on achieving sustainability in food production and food consumption (economic, environmental, social impacts)”. Our aims with the dialogue were: - to have an overview of the current status and a comprehensive overview of our food systems from the perspective of the healthy and sustainable production and consumption, mainly Action Track 2 and 3.; - to straighten and to create contacts between different stakeholders; - to identify the two-three main steps to do in short and in long terms in order to develop sustainability of our food systems.235238239240243244246248249In general participants agreed on the next steps to do on short and long term for achieving more sustainable food systems as follows: 1. Encourage education about healthy diet, environmental education programmes. 2. Proper data collection and agreeing on right indicators, 3. More investment in information technology (apps) and in awareness-raising programmes for consumers. Certified marks and labels for raising the awareness of the public on environmental/ sustainability issues. 4. Preparation of complex, inter-sectoral nutrition strategy and introduction of precision nutrition are desirable. 5. Strengthening of cooperation and coordination between sectors, establishment of a more horizontal approach. Enhance common governmental communication on sustainability. 6. Promotion of organic landscape management and supporting local production, 7. Policy incentives to support more sustainable production techniques. Participants agreed that further dialogues are desired for exploring specific aspects of food systems in greater depth with the involvement of more other stakeholders.2362382392402432442462482491. Already achieved results: Progress in diminishing food waste, establishment of a new waste management system toward sustainability and to achieve circular economy, active research activities on the topic of sustainability, progress in catering sector to promote local products, many activities in education and in attitude formation. Pilot programme to promote healthy nutrition in schools. Booklet on circular economy to SMEs “Hozd magad körforgásba” http://www.hermanottointezet.hu/hozd-magad-korforgasba-utmutato-kkv-k-reszere-korforgasos-gazdasagrol Hungarian version of FAO Booklet „Legyél te is Ételmentő!” http://www.ajbh.hu/documents/10180/2917711/legyel_te_is_etelmento.pdf/df5dbe57-61b2-22c1-df6b-18a0efe100c1 Resolution of the Office of the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights on soil protection http://www.ajbh.hu/documents/10180/2762244/talaj_allasfoglalas_vegleges_melleklettel.pdf/7dcaccce-9932-76de-5ce9-f33ffc3fa93d Resolution of the Office of the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights on implementation of SDGs in Hungary http://www.ajbh.hu/documents/10180/2791084/SDG_elvi+%C3%A1ll%C3%A1sfoglal%C3%A1s_2017_12_19_kiadott.pdf/33b3f4e6-ae40-e743-8d32-2c98b8baea4c Magyar Élelmiszerkönyv - Codex Alimentarius Hungaricus https://elelmiszerlanc.kormany.hu/download/d/64/b1000/2-109_2016-12-21.pdf Educational programmes: Educational programme and documents of the NÉBIH „Wasteless” Oktatási segédanyagok also available in English for special request. Green Kindergarden programme - https://zoldovoda.hu/ Environmental eductaional programme - https://bisel.hu/ « Save a garden programme » - „Ments meg egy kertet!” National School Garden Development Programme - Országos Iskolakert-fejlesztési Program https://www.iskolakertekert.hu/index.php/hu/2362382392402432442462482492. Which are the main areas that need to be developed? - level of organic farming, - harmonized governmental communication strategy on sustainability with the participation of all involved sectors, - agro-technological development, - research activities, - credible data collection and indicators237238239240243244246248249Divergence In the last turn of group discussion we asked participants the following question: “Which are the two most important tasks in the short term and which is the one in the long term that should be solved in terms of making food systems sustainable?” Stakeholders from different sectors had different views about this question, everybody specified the steps to do in the sector where he/she worked. This was not surprising, but the task of the Facilitators was to help participants to come to an intersectoral consensus. Finally we achieved a common view and the „Main Findings” of the Dialogue reflects these achievements.

2021-06-08 13:58:40204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/10039/203165

Yes

2021-06-08 16:00:14204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/14821/194

118196131734804727731114836411527118411252111

We directly addressed each of the seven principles when organizing the dialogue, selecting participants, communicating the objectives of the event and convening the virtual meeting.Act with urgency: all the discussion groups were encouraged to work on immediate solutions. Recognize complexity: the 10 discussion topics reflected the complexity of Southeast Florida food system and its challenges. Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity: we ensured to have representation for all relevant stake holder groups. Build trust: we enabled new connections and building of trust between stakeholder groups trough the dialogue.Respect the principles related to respect and trust, which are critical since the dialogue brings together stakeholders from diverse sectors and organizations, often with competing goals and agendas. It is crucial to bring them back to the goal and rally them around the UN vision.

NoWe did use the same method as recommended by the Convenors Reference Manual, but we created more in-depth planning materials, including: Detailed weekly-based retro-planning, Participant List, Social Media Plan with different visuals and texts than those recommended in the Convenors Reference Manual.

234238239240241242243244246248249251The focus of our Dialogue was: Envisioning a Sustainable and Resilient Food System in SE Florida by 2030. Ten Discussion Groups were organized: 1) Food access: How do we ensure sustainable, affordable and nutritious food for all communities (Action tracks #1, #2 and #4) 2) Resilience after COVID-19: How to build back better food systems (Action track #5) 3) Food Security: SE Florida’s Agriculture in the Coming Decades (Action track #4) 4) Climate Resilience: How to strengthen the food system in the face of a climate emergency (Action track #5) 5) Food Waste and Recovery: What supply chain solutions can help ensure responsible use of resources, reduce and recover food waste from farmers to consumers (Action track #3) 6) Partnership: Game-changing Solutions for transforming Food Systems (Action tracks #1, #3, #4 and #5) 7) The environmental impacts of Food: How can we eat more responsibly? (Action track #2) 8) Making food systems more inclusive: The role of minorities in food systems (Action track #4) 9) Youth Power: How young people can help shift help shift food systems towards increased sustainability and climate resilience (Action tracks #1, #3, #4, and #5) 10) Community building: How to foster collaboration between food system stakeholders to focus and strengthen collective action (Action tracks #1, 2, 3, 4 and #5)235238239240241242243244246248249251The following solutions have been identified: Education – Education is critical to engage the SE FL community on improving food systems. Includes education of consumers about the environmental impact of diets and shelf-life, young people about careers in Food System and farmers about sustainability. Transparency - is needed and can be made possible e.g. through vizualizations of food system map, audits and research. Communication - we need to communicate to counter misinformation and educate. Governance – stronger leadership is needed. Includes, for example, the creation of a board to oversee food system work. Partnerships/stakeholder collaboration – includes the establishment of partnerships e.g. with churches, and collaborations between farmers. Measurement - we can only manage what we can measure. Needs to use indicators that are holistic and impact-focused (e.g. measure health outcomes). Implementation – can be fostered by bringing in community members of trust. Below are the main findings for each action track. AT1: Ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all We need more transparency on distribution of access points: we should count them, and overlay them with health outcomes. Solutions: identify food deserts, increase the number of community gardens and on-site farms at community facilities, bring food market to the people, increase policy support of urban agriculture. AT2 : Shift to sustainable consumption patterns We need to engage and educate populations about the health and environmental impact of food and food waste: engage communities in garden developments, create partnerships with local grocers, supermarkets and farmers’ markets to provide access to healthy food and funding for gardens, promote plant-based options (e.g. Meatless Monday), implement sustainable nutrition education components in schools, expand composting efforts through a municipal-based pick-up and drop-off system for composting facilities. Local farmers need to 1) diversify their production based on local demand, and 2) create their own composting facility on site to process local food scraps. AT3 : Boost nature-positive production We need to increase support for local farmers and increase regulation: ensure remaining imports are treated and cannot introduce new pests, pass heat standards at the federal level (H.R.3668 - Asuncion Valdivia Heat Illness and Fatality Prevention Act) and at the state level so there’s a legal mandate for agricultural employers to provide their workers with rest breaks, water access and restrooms. We need to increase farms’ energy efficiency: invest in technology and pilot projects for sustainable agriculture, convert the power grid to renewable sources, convert septic tanks to sewer systems to avoid nutrient leakage into waterways. AT4 : Advance equitable livelihoods We need to integrate youth into the agri-food system by educating them using technology (social media, apps), having young people talk to other young people to engage them, increase communication on career opportunities in food systems, create a community education component on food systems and community growing in higher education. It is critical to give control back to rural communities and involve them in decision-making, make SNAP available to ex-felons in state of Florida, give farmers contracts for funding, insist on the positive financial impact of transforming food systems to get elected officials involved in giving communities more power over land. AT5: Build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress To increase resilience, we need to: increase use of urban gardens (households, commercial rooftops, public lands) and of household food stocks for emergencies such as hurricanes (stockpiling), develop intra-neighborhood networks to aid most at risk households, use more resilient crops, facilitate households growing their own landscaping plants so that landscaping companies can convert their land to agricultural crops. To build back better from COVID-19, we must prioritize local farmers purchase (supermarkets must have a % of their total purchases coming from local producers, government tax incentives for supermarkets doing so), implement and test the solutions such as programs related to Food Readiness and encouraging the creation of Food Incubators.236238239241243244246248249Food access: How do we ensure sustainable, affordable and nutritious food for all communities Actions urgently needed: 1) Policies: Work with municipalities to work on policies, which can have a higher level of change. Ex: Local food policies that allow for growing food at home and having more urban food agriculture more possible. 2) Urban ag: • Implement community gardens on a certain piece of land and focus on government policy to ensure that the soil is safe and not contaminated to streamlined the process of testing and analysis. • Increase the number of on-site farms at community facilities such as hospitals, schools, etc. (Grow to Heal at Baptist Health) • Increase the number of community gardens and promote the 365-day growing season in Miami • Hydroponic growing and urban growing to preserve farm land and not give that land up. 3) Access and Utilization: • Make farmer’s markets more readily accessible and not considered an event- change the mindset of the community and politicians will show that there is a need for more access. • Increase the number of programs that could be culturally sensitive, ex: Little Haiti could integrate local chefs in the community to create recipes and have fun events to show how they make recipes, give them out, and show how they can eliminate food waste when cooking. Ex: how to cut a pepper to avoid as much waste as possible, and use as much of the food as possible 4) Food waste: Increase composting efforts - It is hard to find places to compost which is a problem in itself, along with the fact that not enough food is composted, but thrown out instead 5) Partnerships: Increase partnerships are needed in general in the tourism industry- opportunity to marry caters, hotels etc. with a community- overflow of foods from events can get donated and there can be incentives for caters and hotels in a form of taxes etc. to reduce waste 6) Priorities: Pin point better the places within neighborhoods that are in most need (access what the community needs and not what we feel the community wants- it’s not about us, it’s about the community) Key stakeholders: • Organizations such as hospitals, (Ex: Baptist Health) as well as schools will change the mind-set of what a farmer’s market is. It needs to be more accessible and more common, and changes in culture can make this happen. Farmers markets are typically on weekends and during limited hours, but this should be more accessible to people. Farmer’s markets are also typically located in affluent areas, and that poses a barrier- Meet people where they are, and bring the market to these areas to eliminate barriers of access. • Refrigerators in Liberty City- allowing the community to come in and take what they wish- donator can put into the refrigerator what they wish. This is innovative and will become more larger and mainstream. Challenges are the health and safety and monitoring of what gets put into these refrigerators. Having good partnerships with donators so that the right foods are going into the refrigerator is imperative Ways in which progress could be assessed: 1) Short-term: examples of increasing access to farmer markets: • Observing the mind-set of people on how they feel about community gardens by talking to people or engaging in focus groups in various communities. This will provide important insight into whether or not these actions are being successful or not. • Counting the frequency and hours in which farmers markets are available is a reat way to quantitatively measure success. This is more immediate measure. 2) Long-term: • General health of population- less access to nutrition food = long term health problems. If over the course of many years, the health of a community improves significantly, we can assess the effect that increased focus on food access has on a group.236242246249Resilience after COVID-19: How to build back better food systems Actions urgently needed 1) Recognize the lack of preparedness for major shifts and the need for restructuring the balance between international supply and local. 2) Carefully manage food supply balance to avoid drastic changes in cost of food 3) Support local farmers and local growers by prioritizing the purchase through educational campaigns 4) Attract young people to farmers, cultivating and incentivizing youth to work in the rural environment 5) Have big supermarket chains choose part of their supply from local farmers (having a % of their total purchases coming from local producers) 6) Create government incentives through tax incentives for supermarkets prioritizing local farmers products 7) Update US food regulations (based in the 19th Century) 8) Amplify the Fresh From Florida database outreach, making it more visible and distributed. 9) Advocate for the changes needed, demanding from local official's tax incentives needed to prioritize local farmer's purchase 10) Incorporate a system thinking approach to food systems 11) Implement and test the solutions such as programs related to Food Readiness and encourage the creation of Food Incubators Key stakeholders • Supermarkets • Local farmers • Government • Public-Private partnerships (Corporations) • Young people • Schools (and the taught content related to planting, food crops, rural) • Doctors Ways in which progress could be assessed: What we have experienced during the Covid-19 Pandemic showed our inadequacy to deal with our global nutrition. The success of our actions will be measured by the level of urgency in acting before the next global challenge arrives - the Climate Crisis. The group recognized the many lessons learned from the Pandemic and the proposed solutions should be put in speed action by our governments now.236241244246248249Food Security: SE Florida’s Agriculture in the Coming Decades Actions urgently needed: 1) Short-term actions: • Increase support for/dependence on local farmers, especially by having grocery stores and restaurants get more produce from South Florida farmers. That would reduce emissions and lower the number of imports, which undercut local growers and drive down the wages of local agricultural employees. • For any imports that remain, move away from using wood pallets or increase regulation to ensure they’re treated and cannot introduce new pests. • Pass heat standards at the federal level (H.R.3668 - Asuncion Valdivia Heat Illness and Fatality Prevention Act) and at the state level so there’s a legal mandate for agricultural employers to provide their workers with rest breaks, water access and restrooms. • Maintain the urban development boundary where it is. • Invest in technology and pilot projects for sustainable agriculture in South Florida, especially in partnership with local universities. 2) Longer-term actions: • Work on increasing farms’ energy efficiency and on converting the power grid to renewable sources so that energy used on farms does not contribute to climate change. • Convert septic tanks to sewer systems to avoid nutrient leakage into waterways. Key stakeholders: Most participants would be willing to advocate for most of the issues above if there were clear channels through which they could do so. Some organizations already lobby on the issues of heat protection and the urban development boundary. Priority issues that would benefit from a more organized advocacy effort include buying local produce (especially getting supermarkets and restaurants to buy local) and converting the energy grid. These issues align with many of the advocacy efforts of local climate groups, so perhaps there’s a way to jointly mobilize with them. Many of these organizations would be willing to partner with one another or with universities on pilot projects for sustainable agriculture, if the opportunities and funding were made available to them. Ways in which progress could be assessed: How would success look like? Examples: If the Urban Development Boundary stays where it is. If Congress and Florida’s Legislature each pass laws mandating heat risk protections for ag workers. If there’s increased regulation/reduced use of untreated wooden pallets leading to a decline in the emergence of new pests and diseases. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions and increasing the economy’s reliance on local farmers are harder to quantify.236242243244246249Climate Resilience: How to strengthen the food system in the face of a climate emergency? Actions urgently needed: 1) Better understand what is happening in the area by creating workgroups and gaining insights into the “lay of the land”: understand the threats, what is already being impacted and how. 2) Implement a plan so that efforts are not duplicated. Other efforts/actions include: 1) Increase use of urban gardens (households, commercial rooftops, public lands) 2) Increase use of household food stocks for emergencies such as hurricanes (stockpiling) 3) Create intra-neighborhood networks to aid most at risk households especially the elderly and shut-ins 4) Make food systems flexible and adaptable as climate threats change 5) Build desalinization plants 6) Increase use of more resilient crops, phase out less resilient crops, for better use of agricultural land 7) Facilitate households growing their own landscaping plants so that landscaping companies can convert their land to agricultural crops 8) Create a public community garden at every public school 9) Counter the effect of the increase in poor diet health problems among people 10) Transition to a more sustainable, less wasteful food system - government/agencies working with industries/corporations 11) Provide equity in food security across race, ethnicity and income Key stakeholders: Actions will require the participation of food organizations, local elected officials, government, farmers, distributors and businesses. Ways in which progress could be assessed: • Determine the impact felt in marginalized communities, which are/will be the most affected; determine number of food insecure people • Monitor food costs, as they will go up if actions are not successful • Access to fresh food will be more difficult if action is not successful • Monitor malnutrition, as it could be a problem. How to ensure nutrients make it to the communities? • House insecurity, homelessness, food insecurity…all interconnected – monitor these to determine success. • If not successful there will be an increase in poor diet health problems among people • There must be equity in food security across race, ethnicity and income • There will be a rise/fall in proportion of fresh produce within diets • Determine the agricultural productivity per acre on vital commodities/produce • Ability to adapt to sudden or unexpected crises • Measurement of unsold food recovered or rescued and diverted to food banks, pantries, homeless shelters, etc.236240Food Waste and Recovery: What supply chain solutions can help ensure responsible use of resources, reduce and recover food waste from farmers to consumers? Actions urgently needed: 1) Expand composting efforts 2) Start with an education campaign at a state level and simultaneously develop a municipal based pick up and drop off system for composting facilities 3) Have municipalities to first provide services to primary education centers, then restaurants, and then households 4) Have municipal governments also incentivize local farmers to create their own composting facility on site to process local food scraps 5) Have local farmers diversify their production based on local demand. 6) Food access needs to be improved to avoid surplus food going to waste by: • Providing research grants to identify food deserts in South Florida • Advocating for zoning policy to allow mixed use • Incentivizing the creation of small local fresh produce only stores within walking distance of food deserts • Subsidizing the purchase of storage equipment for those stores • Accepting food stamps at those stores • Eliminating strict quality standards based on the weight, size and appearance of the fresh produce (fruits, vegetables, meat, fish and dairy) sold • Ensuring the transportation/delivery of locally produced items to above mentioned stores. Key stakeholders: • Local government can carry out public awareness campaigns at the consumer level to encourage a movement away from impulsive to rational consumption patterns. Working with employers to provide free days for workers to attend health/wellness classes (provided by organizations such as; the UF IFAS extension program or local nutritionist) on a healthy diet, purchase planning, making a grocery list (based on daily needs), creating an inventory of supplies, and buying less. • NGO’s can continue their efforts to divert food from landfills by delivering it to food banks and sending scrap for animal feed or to Industrial Use sites (to recover energy). NGO’s can also press for legislation that encourages markets to sell ‘sub-standard’ products that are still safe and of good taste and nutritional value. • Municipal governments can help by developing linkages between farmers and local restaurants, food banks and supermarkets so they better understand local demand and diversify their production accordingly. • Restaurants, the amount of available food per person in restaurants has increased. In addition to providing restaurants with free food waste audits, NGO’s can continue to help them divert their food from the landfill while municipalities set up the composting system. We suggest research be conducted to find ways to address the bi-product waste/packaging created by restaurants providing takeout options for clients. Ways in which progress could be assessed: • Post-secondary education institutions and NGOs can continue to carry out research designed to identify food waste along the value chain of locally produced food. • Universities and NGOs can provide free waste audits at the retail and restaurant level and see how things have improved.236238240241242243246248249Partnership: Game-changing Solutions for transforming Food Systems Actions urgently needed: 1) Increase coordination efforts – necessary to partner and scale up the action 2) Increase clarity and transparency by formalizing partnerships - a way to help simplify some of the challenges that take place when building collective impact efforts. 3) Avoid duplication of work: let others know what each organization is good at, and let other actors do their part 4) Create policies - needed to have an official way of coordinating actions with clarity 5) Staffing/Capacity of partners is an issue: increase collaboration to make up for the capacity issues, to leverage staff time, expertise, diversify programming, etc. Increase multi sector partnerships and collective impact collaborations 6) Create a universal database for food system non-profit database to share data 7) Have more “shared used kitchens”, increase number of food hubs Key stakeholders: • Foodsavers.Org • Feeding South Florida • Humana educational seminars on healthy eating on a budget • Publix is socially responsible and can educate and help out through their grants. • The organization should be responsible for advocating towards education… collaboration with businesses to support these businesses • Dietetic association (Miami and Florida) those members would offer their time: anything about education.236239244248The environmental impacts of Food: How can we eat more responsibly? Actions urgently needed: Developing and providing access to affordable healthier food options that are also sustainably grown: 1) using Patch concept - community gardens in urban areas of low social-economic status; 2) engaging community in garden developments; 3) providing subsidies for fresh local seasonal produce; 4) partnering up with local grocers, supermarkets and farmer’s market to provide access to foods, funding for gardens, employment and volunteer opportunities; 5) promoting Meatless Monday campaigns along with other plant-based options for healthier humans and the Planet; 6) urging school districts to implement sustainable nutrition education components, engaging community on ongoing events and educational sessions on sustainable nutrition.236241245249Making food systems more inclusive: The role of minorities in food systems Actions urgently needed: 1) Increase funding • State level funding could give opportunities to community gardens for access to food. • Give opportunity to growing food locally and distributing, rather than outsourcing foods (ex from California to Miami). Food that travels leads to food waste • Fund local farmers to avoid this issue • Funds (16 bil) weren’t given to rural farmers, only to a select few. Funds weren’t used to increase wages for farmers. 2) Give control back to communities. Rural communities should have access to land for community farming focus on people of color Co-op farming to support real resilience. Actionable Step #1: Make SNAP available to ex-felons in state of Florida. Introduce new legislations. Step #2: Farm to food model, create entrepreneurship opportunities to teach children to grow and give access to food in local communities. Step #3: Initiatives started to have farming Co-ops. Address supply chain model issues and give control back to rural communities. Farms are in rural communities but they have least access to it. Step #4: Give farmers contracts for funding, example farmers in Davie, getting them contracts with the USDA Step #5: What every day consumers can do: Go to city council meetings, make elected officials more involved, grow our own food. Unless city governments can see financial impact, they won’t be as open to being involved to give communities more power over land. Ex. Instead of X would make people healthier, X would lower how much money is spent on X people negatively impacted by X. Step #6: Educate people and give them resources to tools needed. 40% of college students are food insecure, so that students have access to SNAP. Step #7: Consumers can buy local. On an individual level, you can educate people about it. Step #8: Involve people in rural communities and farmers in solutions to food insecurity, don’t exclude them from the conversations.236238240241242248251Youth Power: How young people can help shift help shift food systems towards increased sustainability and climate resilience Actions urgently needed: 1) Increase Youth knowledge on gardening 2) Use technology (social media, apps) to integrate youth into the agri-food system 3) Have young people talking to young people helps engage younger generations 4) Have organizations led by young people to partner with school districts to engage high school students 5) Create a community education component on food systems and community growing in higher education 6) Work on aquaponics system with youth 7) Use waste from tilapia growing system to grow lettuce 8) Education initiative to get young volunteers involved—incorporate lifestyle (example fishing) into food system education 9) Increase communication on opportunities in food system: market, job opportunities, financial perspectives236238239240241242243244245246248249251Community building: How to foster collaboration between food system stakeholders to focus and strengthen collective action? Actions urgently needed: 1) Build the next generation of farmers – critical actors- by educating students and providing them with real-world experiences in farming, community building, and advocating for food rights and sustainability. Integrate food sustainability and security as a component of the political agenda for local elected officials so that they are accountable and connected with the interests of this topic alongside organizations driving for change. The creation of a formal Committee with stakeholders across the ecosystem will yield the greatest returns -- Faith-based organizations, educators, youth, non-profit orgs, relevant special interest groups, and elected officials. Most pressing is ensuring that the actual groups affected most by this challenge have a voice and are a part of this Committee. They should be valued and present at the table for solutions. 2) Give more visibility to mental health and well-being as components of the need for food security, nutrition, and access. The ecosystem of advocacy on this topic should also include mental health professional’s voices. 3) K-12 engagement is critical to building a pipeline for food system advocacy, including future farmers. 4) Integrate the systems approach with the end-user being the community member. Critical to engage them to learn about their pain points in order to create solutions (don’t assume). 5) Encourage, fund, and educate traditional farmers on new technologies to yield higher nutritional crops by using hydroponic and aquaponic.2372382392402412422442462482491) Food security: The extent to which farmers and agricultural producers are responsible for the degradation of Florida’s Everglades and the emergence of “toxic” blue-green algae blooms following discharges of water from Lake Okeechobee. Participants agree that nutrients found in fertilizer and septic tanks contribute to the blue-green algae; however, there was debate over whether these nutrients come from agricultural producers or if they’re mainly the result of leaking septic and sewer tanks. This discussion gets at a broader debate over what amount of Florida’s resources - especially water and land - ought to be used to support human populations. How much land should be urbanized vs. used for agriculture vs. restored or conserved in its “natural” state? What amount of nutrients, if any, is permissible in water? Who should be held responsible for the excess, and should they be made to compensate in some way? 2) Food waste: Packaging: This was an area of contention because packaging makes food last longer but also adds to waste in landfills so, participants suggested consumer groups/NGOs study which packages expand the life span of a product (and can be re-used) and which can be phased out. Participants also suggested considering a tax on food packaging that reflects the product’s true cost based on its environmental footprint. A ‘packaging tax’ (that can partly subsidize municipal waste disposal services) might also encourage consumers to switch away from processed foods to a healthier fresh diet. A scientist in the group suggested continuing to promote innovation/research on products designed to increase life span of produce without packaging. 3) Climate change: There is still denial in the general population about climate change. We must create awareness, education and a call to action. It will not be sufficient to get people facts, and it will be more important to teach people to discern what is important. Critical thinking is a must: what is relevant and what is not. Education involves connecting the dots and showing the consequences of taking action, or lack thereof will show how everyone is affected, some to a greater degree than others. Politicians/elected officials must hear from citizens – it is not enough to just vote. Regulation has very limited reach as business is profit-driven. Outside pressure (e.g., from civil society) is needed. We need to sensitize politicians and CEOs. Advocacy is important beyond vote.

2021-06-08 16:02:13204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/23881/203

146020773811076700857112033210011340113121921102019902011106015019

CropLife International ensured that the Principles were reflected in every aspect of the Independent Food Systems Dialogue that it hosted. CropLife International aims to support the Food Systems Summit by creating opportunities for dialogue and reflection on the role of innovation in agriculture to deliver sustainable food systems. It is for this reason that the Dialogue was centered around opportunities for unleashing innovation in local food systems. It was expected that the Dialogue would help to identify some common global priorities for food systems innovation while also encouraging various regional nuances to come to the surface. With this in mind, the Dialogue’s breakout sessions were organized around six major regions: North America, Latin America, Europe, Africa and the Middle East, North Asia and South Asia. This dynamic recognizes the complexity both within and between different systems while also allowing for the possibility of a common path forward – based on shared goals, beliefs and experiences. In terms of embracing multi-stakeholder inclusivity, CropLife International partnered with five organizations (representing diverse stakeholder groups and regions) to enhance the convening power of the Dialogue. These included the Agriculture and Food Systems Institute, Cornell Alliance for Science, Global Farmer Network, Inter-American Institute for Cooperation in Agriculture (IICA), and Thought for Food. Each of the partners acted as a facilitator for the regional breakout sessions. Having a strong farmer voice in the Dialogue was also very important for the discussion. Lastly, the Dialogue was held under the Chatham House rule in order to encourage lively and candid discussions amongst the participants and to build trust.In line with the Summit itself, CropLife International sees innovation as a key “lever of change” in sustainable food systems. By convening a broad set of stakeholders as partners and participants in the Dialogue, our hope was to understand more fully the role that innovation can play in delivering future food systems that continue to meet society’s expectations while sustaining the livelihoods of agri-food chain actors and respecting planetary boundaries. The Dialogue was structured into two separate sessions to accommodate the various time zones of various participants around the world. Two farmers were selected to act as the curator with the goal of putting farmers at the center of the discussion.We found it valuable to set a sufficiently broad theme for the discussion so that many stakeholders could contribute meaningfully. We wanted to convene and hear from a broad group of key stakeholders representing as much as possible a cross-section of the agri-food value chain -- from farmers, researchers and private sector representatives to nutritionists, youth and NGOs, with a diverse geographical representation.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The theme of the CropLife International Independent Food Systems Dialogue was “Unleashing Innovation to Transform Local Food Systems”. It was organized around six major agricultural regions, which allowed us to identify the challenges, opportunities, synergies and areas of divergence that exist across these regions – in other words to identify both the common global needs as well as region-specific foci. Each of the regional breakouts discussed all of the Action Tracks, with some key insights summarized below. Participants were invited to participate based on their regional and professional focus. Facilitators first invited participants to introduce themselves, then to present the specific challenges and solutions they see from their individual perspective, and finally to discuss broader regional priorities, successes and lessons learnt. Innovation was defined in a broad way to not only include new technologies but also new approaches, including through novel forms of collaboration and by harnessing new digital tools.235238239240241242243244248250251Some key areas of consensus from the Dialogues included: - Food systems are not a zero sum game: Innovation can create win-win opportunities for people and planet. - There is an urgent need for more innovation to help future food systems meet the ever more complex set of expectations that society places on them – from food security and nutrition to livelihoods, ecosystem services and climate mitigation. - Farmers are the foundation of our food systems and have demonstrated time and again that they can rise to the challenge if they are equipped and supported to do so. - Innovation can take many forms – from researching new technologies, to scaling up of existing approaches and applying new ways of working, partnerships and practices. - Facilitating a better connection between farmers and consumers is essential in order to better understand innovative approaches in the food system. - Young people need to be supported to go into careers in agriculture and get engaged with new technologies and approaches, especially given rural youth unemployment and the ageing population of farmers across many regions. - Scaling existing innovation is as important and will require better communication with farmers and other agri-food chain actors to accomplish, for instance conservation agriculture to improve soil fertility and capture carbon. “Success is contagious so when farmers see the results on the ground, they will adopt it also.”236238239240241242243244248250North America: - Farming has made great improvements over the past decades – “We have a success story to tell.” - Innovation needs to reach the whole agri-food chain. - The gap between innovation and regulation needs to be bridged. - Consumers need to be brought back into the conversation so that they feel connected to where their food comes from. - Focusing on agricultural transformations will help trigger further innovations all along the food chain.236238239240241242243246248249Latin America: - Farmers must be supported and capacitated to adopt new technologies. - Innovation should also focus on ways of collaborating more effectively and widely. - New digital platforms can help connect farmers to markets and to other agri-food chain actors more easily. - Proper legislation and regulation are important to create an enabling environment for innovation. “If that’s right, the investment will follow.”236238239240241242243248249Europe: - Information on food systems is often currently sensationalized, and farmers struggle to keep up. “I’m a farmer, I can’t spend 10 hours on communicating every day.” - Consumer perceptions need to be addressed head-on with more science-based communication. - Educating consumers from a young age about food systems (including farming practices, diets and nutrition) can help them be more informed into adulthood. - Retailers’ marketing efforts to consumers is highly competitive, and different issues can be portrayed as “the enemy” as a way of creating differentiation.236238239240241242243244248251Africa and the Middle East: - The yield gap in Africa remains high, which continues to put pressure on food security on the continent. - There is a need for stronger farmer voices from the field. They need to be better organized to do so. - Training and extension materials are often unavailable in all languages nor “translated” to make complex concepts like climate change understandable. Farmers learn best from other farmers. - Farmers need to be supported as business people and their work treated as such. Uptake of innovation cannot happen if farmers cannot make a profit from doing so. - Researchers need to work more closely with farmers, not in isolation, in order to align their work with farmer needs.236238239240241242243248249250North Asia: - “Communication is just as important as innovation.” Consumers need to better understand the benefits, trade-offs and synergies of different innovations. - Behavioral changes are needed both for consumers and producers. - Producers need to engage more with policymakers and the general public. - Digital agriculture is helping educate young farmers and help them to problem solve issues in real time. - Artificial intelligence is guiding new systems for farming, observing many factors simultaneously like climate controls, water etc. all remotely. - E-commerce is redefining agri-food value chains (accelerated by Covid-19) and is helping more farmers to cut out the middle man.236238239240241242243244248South Asia: - Innovation needs to be focused around farmers’ needs. “There is still a huge gap between the lab and the land.” - There is still a lack of post-harvest processing and storage, lack of access to advanced agricultural science, lack of access to equipment and infrastructure, and poor access to market for many farmers. - Trade barriers need to be further broken down and regulatory environments harmonized. - The private sector needs to be mobilized to rise to the challenge of delivering on the transformations required. - Covid-19 accelerated the use of digital platforms for farmer extension and diagnostics.237238239240241242243244248249250For the most part, participants aligned around the priorities that exist around innovation; however, they flagged a number of nuances based on the context within which these innovations need to take place. For instance: - Several regional breakouts flagged the disconnect that exists between consumers’ stated preferences and their actual behavior. (Most consumers still purchase based on affordability, access and habit more than any other factor.) - Different breakouts discussed where the locus of decision-making actually existed within the agri-food chain, but many flagged both consumers and farmers are the most important stakeholders. - Several breakouts discussed the need for regulation to keep up with innovation, especially around topics like plant biotechnology. - Innovations must also reflect both the socioeconomic and agroecological contexts of the food system to which they are being applied. “As a farmer, what I need is a motorcycle but you give me an airplane.” - More developed markets tended to talk more about sustainability issues (such as water use, soil fertility and carbon mitigation) whereas less developed markets prioritized the need to boost yields (consistently), support farmer livelihoods and improve consumers’ access to affordable, diverse, safe food.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/CropLife-International-Dialogue-Visual-Card-Europe.jpghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/CropLife-International-Dialogue-Visual-Card-Latin-America.jpghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/CropLife-International-Dialogue-Visual-Card-North-America.jpghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/CropLife-International-Dialogue-Visual-Card-North-Asia.jpghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/CropLife-International-Dialogue-Visual-Card-South-Asia.jpghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/CropLife-International-Dialogue-Visual-Card-Africa-Middle-East.jpghttps://croplife.org/news-views/united-nations-food-systems-summit-2021/

2021-06-08 16:46:11204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/13822/203

99961182852921176

The Dialogue was organized as a series of multistakeholder thematic discussions, with the specific objective to promote exchange on promising innovations, connect stakeholders, and broaden partnerships to transform food systems in Africa. In order to capitalize on existing initiatives, the dialogue looked at existing efforts and opportunities for acceleration and synergies among different stakeholders.The Dialogue acted in recognition of the complexities of African food systems and the urgency of action to transform them. The dialogue stimulated multistakeholder exchange by bringing to the table a diversity of stakeholders from within government, the business community, civil society, and research.

NoWhile the dialogue engaged a variety of stakeholders across food systems, the format slightly differed from the standard one envisioned in the Convenors Reference Manual. The dialogue featured several focused panel discussions over two days, with a closing plenary at the end of each day highlighting key ideas and commitments that emerged. The dialogue featured 79 panelists and moderators, 2228 registered participants and 11,222 livestream viewers.

234238240241242243244245246248249251The event aimed to identify ways to expand activities, financing, and partnerships to further leverage technology and innovation for the transformation of agriculture food systems in Africa to improve food security and nutrition, help recover from the current crisis and build long-term resilience to climate change and other shocks in the continent. It placed particular emphasis on ways to increase agricultural production, proposing ways to facilitate investments in research, sustainable technologies, and infrastructure, leveraging the private sector to accelerate progress. The Dialogue provided African Leaders a unique opportunity to contribute to the global discourse and to share success stories on home-grown strategies and achievements in scaling up successful innovations. The outcomes of this dialogue laid the foundation for Africa to present a unified voice to step up efforts and partnerships towards reaching the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030 and they will be presented as Africa’s shared commitments within the UN Food Systems Summit.235238240241242245246248249The key conclusions of the dialogue highlighted the need to strengthen collaboration, establish new partnerships and agree on shared commitments to help modernize and strengthen African food systems. The dialogue culminated with the announcement of a coalition of multilateral development banks and development partners to pledge over US$17 billion in the financing, in a bold bid to address rising hunger on the African continent and to improve food security. In addition, 17 African Leaders committed to concrete actions to boost agricultural production by doubling current productivity levels through the scaling up of agricultural technologies, investing in the development of agro-industrial processing zones to boost national and regional food markets for value-added and nutritious foods, expanding economic opportunities for rural economies through the transformation of agriculture, expanding support to smallholder farmers, especially women and youth, and increasing support for agricultural research and development. They highlighted the following seven areas as those requiring the highest attention: 1. Accelerate agricultural production by doubling current agricultural productivity levels; 2. Increase financing for global, national, regional research and development systems; 3. Enhance support for climate-proofing agriculture in Africa to boost the ability of farmers to adapt to climate change, especially through drought-tolerant crops and livestock, digital weather information and climate advisories, irrigation, better water management, and crop and livestock insurance products; 4. Support infrastructure for the development of special agro-industrial processing zones, to support private sector processing and value addition, logistics, and transport for market development and competitiveness; 5. Expand access to finance for farmers and food systems’ actors, through reducing risks of lending to agricultural value chains, and attract greater private sector financing into agriculture; 6. Build a stronger partnership between the public, private sectors, farmers’ associations, civil society, research, and universities, to ensure that inclusive approaches are used across the agricultural value chains; 7. Accelerate greater access of African countries to more concessional financing resources to support the development of the agricultural sector. The attached Communiqué summarizes the discussions and commitments made during the dialogue.2362382402412422462482491. Successful Policy Interventions for Scaling Technologies The discussion focused on the need for political will to scale up the role of technologies in agriculture, as well as governments’ capacity to take up technologies. The following emerged as game-changing interventions from a policy standpoint: - Stronger mechanisms for political accountability for hunger and food insecurity - Digitalization and the provision of bundles of digital services to farmers (e.g. digital micro-forecasting data and digital curriculums) - Policies that promote the emergence of a local private sector, which in turn will produce employment opportunities and innovation - Policies and national investments in line with the commitments of the Malabo declaration, in order to make technology affordable and available - Institutional innovation and regional alignment as an important basis for a strong science-policy interface (capitalizing on the strong interconnectedness of African Food Systems) - Encourage a shift of development partners from subsidies to markets expansion - Support school feeding programs at scale, as well as investments that are cognizant of climate change and the pandemic recovery needs The Head of States session and the communique mentioned a financing facility for food and nutrition security to support this. The AfDB and IFAD will work to set up the aforementioned facility.2362402422432442452462482492. Innovative Partnership and Financing Approaches for Agricultural R&D Around a third of calories consumed in Africa are imported from outside the continent. Low productivity of major staple crops is at the core of Africa’s food security challenge and the non-competitiveness of its agriculture. The discussion around this topic focused on the need to foster the relationship between national agricultural institutions and regional agricultural institutions, and it looked at some existing solutions with potential for scaling up: - Establish a (sovereign) Regional Research for Development fund to invest in shared agricultural research priorities and address the questions and challenges that would arise as technologies are scaled up and rolled out across Africa. The AfDB and IFAD will work to set up the aforementioned facility. - Capitalize on the Technologies for Agricultural Transformation (TAAT) program: TAAT brings together scientists from international and national agricultural research systems, governments, and the private sector to deliver agricultural technologies to farmers, at scale. Its implementation reveals that increased investments in Agricultural Research & Development and adoption of technology can help in boosting agricultural productivity, with important results for the overall strength of the food system. However, funding for regional and sub-regional research and development institutions has declined, limiting opportunities for investments in innovation and research and development. - Develop a new partnership capitalizing on the complementary roles that both the AfDB and IFAD have in enabling agricultural transformation in Africa, to revamp existing Africa’s Regional Technology Delivery Infrastructure (RTDI), and ecosystems for regional and sub-regional research and development, with the potential to push technologies beyond borders and support strong regional agricultural value chains.2362402412422432452482492513. Unlocking Private Sector Investment to Transform Agriculture Several voices contributed to this discussion throughout the two-day dialogue. It was noted that finance is needed at three key stages of the innovation process: 1. Incubation, 2. Start-up, 3. Acceleration. Among the game-changing solutions proposed were: - Digital credit ratings and credit scoring tools for farmers - Revisiting agriculture curriculums to teach agriculture as a business, encouraging students to become agro-entrepreneurs. - Implement policies that enable modernization of agriculture and promote the emergence of a local private sector - A call for the establishment of a Financing Facility for Food Security in Africa, to scale up climate-resilient and successful agricultural technologies and strengthen commodity value chains for both staple food and cash crops.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Communique_30.04.2021-FINAL.pdfhttps://www.afdb.org/en/events/high-level-virtual-dialogue-feeding-africa-leadership-scale-successful-innovationshttps://www.ifad.org/en/web/latest/-/african-development-bank-ifad-and-partners-redouble-efforts-to-stop-hunger-in-africa-and-strengthen-food-security

2021-06-08 19:20:21204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/21790/139

44341033101302210184221026

The dialogue was organized with a multi-stakeholder inclusive approach. Active and committed community participants and representative of local and national bodies were invited. Participants who were fully vested in their communities development and welfare were carefully selected, so experential learning could be transferred back to the local communities, as well as to the organizers completing the UNFSS feedback loop.The dialogue was conducted in an open and respectful, as well as reflective environment, by enabling all the participants to interact with each other, as well as with the moderators and resource people. The Q&A sessions, as well as the FGD allowed for participants to freely express their input, ideas and feedback. Within the FGD section of the dialogue, the groups interacted well together and worked together to validate or express new ideas via a group presentation on the different Action Tracks.The Principles of Engagement provide an informative framework on how to conduct a multi-stakeholder dialog about the complex issues prevalent within a complex food system, while allowing for individual connections to be fostered. We observed that by allowing for Focus Group Discussions to be led by the individuals within the group, increased their interaction, while allowing for all participants to feel like they have contributed. Group presentations by a nominated presenter from within the groups allows them to see their valuable input shared in real time, as well as reflected in the discussions within the dialog. It is suggested to Dialogue Convenors to effectively utilize the FGD component by using the 'Breakout rooms' function within Zoom when conducting the dialogue virtually.

Yes

234240242243244248249251Breakout Group 1 explored the Action Tracks 3 and 5 for workable solutions and levers of change. Main findings included: Recommendation 1 (3.1) Agro Forestry/Community Forestation Subsidies for Marginalized Areas Infrastructure Investment on Mountainous Areas. Recommendation 2 (3.2) Promotion of Indigenous Crops and Livestock Promotion and Incentivize of Organic Production Land Usage plan through community. Recommendation 3 (3.3) Continuous Research and Alternate Income for the pastureland community. Longitudinal study of pastural areas. Recommendation 1 (5.1) Promotion of Food Banking on community level. Recommendation 2 (5.2) Support to the upstream community.235238239248249Breakout Group 2 explored the Action Tracks 1and 2 for workable solutions and levers of change. Main findings included: Food availability, most important is where the food is produced. Farmers should be organized and equipped with innovative techniques./There should be information on market access – good prices and where can they sell/ Farmers’ capacity building/ Resources of the farmers _MFIs, govt investments/Food safety – cold chain, packaging based on the needs ,of the consumers Food security/sovereignty – farmers are the most vulnerable, Farmers are going to the cities/ other people should be considered – policy level approach- there should institutions to provide technical input/ seeds are provided at high prices and you cannot use the harvested seed to plant/Farmers shuuld have control over their supply of seeds, water and other inputs Technology dissemination is very important – governments should also be responsible. Promotion of private investment236241246248249Breakout Group 3 explored the Action Track 4 for workable solutions and levers of change. Recommendations included: 1. Reducing the power unbalancing through affordable financing be available across the board for small farmers to be more independent in terms of purchasing of the inputs, negotiating for selling the crops etc. State bank should create low cost refinancing for small farmers Pakistan Credit Guarantee Company should incentivize such schemes for the commercial banks 2. Contract farming need to be introduced especially in newly merged districts of KP and Baluchistan that will lead to following 3 areas Access to market Access to affordable finance Access to advisory services Further we need to draft and regulate the legal framework for newly merged districts of KP and Baluchistan 3.Inclusive approach for organizing the local institutions (farmer groups, cooperatives etc.) at grass roots level and campaigning must be initiated for increasing the level of awareness and sensitization of those institutions especially using digitization for accessing the all services across the board by ensuring “Leave No One Behind” Digitization of the local institutions and utilization of the digital tools for increasing the awareness and access to the services

2021-06-08 23:37:29204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/8886/203

132660452185476222116201167326842410420129715694246

The convenors attended the dialogue training therefore the learnings around the Summit principles and expected structure were considered from the inception of the dialogue. The dialogue was truly globally representative and whilst the aim of the dialogue was to represent the total global meat & livestock sector in all its diversity, the conveners also encouraged the involvement of various participants from outside the industry (also located globally), bringing diverse perspective to the dialogue. These differences were looked at favourably as in the spirit of the Summit, the dialogue was seen as an opportunity to work through some of these differing perspectives. Following best practice set forward by the UN and the UNFSS leadership team, five keynote presentations were proceeded by smaller, intimate group discussions, where effort was made to ensure a diverse participant list underpinned each session. The dialogue was promoted through the UNFSS dialogue gateway and across traditional and social media using the templates made available by the UNFSS and other developed materials.The following considerations were made to ensure the UNFSS Principles of Engagement were reflected throughout the dialogue: Act with urgency: The focus of the dialogue was to generate outcomes and pathways to creating urgent change to reach the 2030 UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). To this end, two Game Changing Solutions were identified to be put forward to the UNFSS and several current initiatives were brought to light for the wider group to build upon. Commit to the Summit: By way of participation, attendees put aside commercial interests to share information with one another in response to achieving a common goal. Be respectful: The group discussion demonstrated respect for all in attendance by allowing each participant to voice their opinions in a genuine and transparent way. Recognise complexity: Whilst two Game Changing Solutions were identified via this dialogue, the aim was clearly to identify the role of the global meat & livestock sector by providing many individual and diverse examples and noting that these needed to be considered holistically with potential synergies and trade-offs. Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity: The conveners opened invitations to the dialogue to as many voices as possible, with the aim of capturing all perspectives. All participants were invited into the various breakout rooms to allow opportunity for participants to voice their opinions. Complement the work of others: The dialogue provided a platform for participants to share existing work and to connect with others to broaden relationships across the globe and support one another to build upon these initiatives. Build trust: The breakout sessions were held under the Chatham House Rules, which helped to build openness and trust, and enabled participants to reflect on their own lived experience.Short, concise presentations at the beginning of the call helped to set the scene and provide direction for conversation and desired outcomes. Emphasis was placed on the dialogue being solutions focused which meant conversation was forward-looking and productive. Facilitated breakout discussion following the presentations ensured productive conversation and it is ideal to have note-takers during this session to help summarise and capture the discussion in its entirety and to draw out key themes. Our dialogue built in a short break between the facilitated group discussion and a final report of these sessions back to the total group which allowed for facilitators and note-takers an opportunity to come together and summarise their groups findings. The others in the groups spent the break time networking and building connections.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The dialogue focused on bringing together participants from all aspects of the global meat & livestock supply chain to discuss the role of the global meat & livestock sector in future sustainable food systems. Participants ranged from smallholder farmers to processors to butchers/chefs to those who sell the final products, to scientists, nutritionists, retailers and government policy makers. This ensured the opportunity was created for a diverse range of views to be presented to reach a shared understanding of the discussion topic. The dialogue was centred around all the UNFSS Action Tracks and the following topics were covered by both a presentation and group discussion: 1. Food security: What is the role of animal sourced protein in feeding the growing world’s population? 2. What is the role of meat in the diet and what are the implications of going without? 3. How can we sustainably manage existing food production systems to the benefit of both nature and people? 4. What is the role of the global meat & livestock sector in future-proofing our food systems and protecting against shocks and stresses? 5. How do we maintain a balanced debate and inclusive narrative? The meat & livestock sector is united in its ambition to bring high quality, nutritious and sustainable food to everyone and is continuously driving towards a carbon positive farming industry with high animal welfare and environmental standards at its heart. It was noted that this dialogue brought together a large representation of the global meat & livestock sector and that conversations of this nature, in an open forum, need to continue. The industry commits to continuing with this activity and thanks the UNFSS for providing such an important platform to do so.235238239240241242243244248249250Two Game Changing Solutions were identified: Game Changing Solution 1 - Facilitate a global capacity which enables knowledge transfer & empowers smallholder farmers in low & middle-income countries (LMICs) to obtain successful solutions & proven, context appropriate technologies. Providing LMICs, such as those in Africa, with the means to improve efficiencies, genetics and environmental impact, would empower these farmers to finally be considered part of the global food system. For example, 20% of the world’s cattle are raised in Sub-Saharan Africa however the region only contributes 2-3% of the world’s beef production and the lowest milk production per cow (1). Cattle are raised by smallholder farmers who historically have been unable to commercialise. The benefits of empowering farmers would enhance the ability to feed a greater percentage of the local population without increasing the herd size, resulting in a lower carbon footprint; and lower local incidence of metabolic illness and alleviation of poverty in an area that will hold 23% of the world’s population by 2050. Game Changing Solution 2 - To holistically achieve sustainable food systems, a comprehensive & unbiased nutritional / environmental index built from high quality science is urgently required. Smart metrics are needed to establish planetary health and human health simultaneously. Such an index should be valid for both individual foods and complete diets and applicable to diverse regional and economic situations. Currently, foods and food systems are often measured on gross rather than net environmental impact and without any consideration of contribution to human health in terms of protein and essential nutrients required for development and optimal wellbeing. If we are truly to understand what sustainable, healthy diets look like we need these metrics to simultaneously track net environmental impact and nutrient density and diversity. Foods need to be evaluated through appropriate local and regional Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) combined with comprehensive dietary contributions. In addition, the following was strongly identified: • Balanced healthy diets require a combination of animal and plant-based foods, adapted to regional cultures, local food availability, distribution systems and climatic constraints. • Animal sourced proteins are a high-quality protein source that provide the full array of essential amino acids and other important nutrients, such as bioavailable iron, vitamin B12 and zinc. • There is no consistent evidence that any one food, including meat, leads to an increased risk of death. The evidence linking red meat with cancer are based on studies that show associations between food and health, not causation. There are many diet and lifestyle factors that contribute to risk factors for chronic diseases, including obesity, sedentary lifestyles and lack of dietary fibre. The methodology of those studies are limited in their ability to accurately measure individual food types. In addition, they are limited in their ability to distinguish between any effect of red meat separately from that of other risk factors. The small size of the association reported suggests residual confounding from unhealthy diet and lifestyle risk factors is the most likely explanation. From a perception perspective, insights suggest health is personal and different for everyone. While consumers tend to filter information and gravitate to solutions that fit their personal mindsets and behaviours, most have a balanced approach to healthy eating and continue to enjoy eating a variety of protein choices. • For livestock, the narrative is focused on gross emissions and claimed negative impact. However, this narrative is flawed in not recognising that, unlike fossil fuel emissions that accumulate, methane from ruminants is naturally cycled resulting in far lower net emissions over time, with well managed systems reducing atmospheric GHG through soil and tree carbon sequestration. • Managed correctly livestock can have a positive impact on global warming by transferring atmospheric carbon to soils through plant photosynthesis. • Livestock enable economic development of marginal land that is unsuitable for alternate food production systems. - Ruminant animals convert grass and other plants with low nutrient value to humans into high quality protein, fatty acids, vitamins and minerals that humans can digest and utilise to function for health and well-being. - These marginal lands have an environmental function and livestock producers for quite some years have been putting practices in place to protect biodiversity of these lands. - Regenerative management practices result in improved soil health, greater water holding capacity and increased plant growth, increasing human food availability in harmony with increased biodiversity and system resilience. • Improved efficiency of livestock production will mean the total global livestock sector’s contribution to temperature will not increase and likely decease and in tandem, will produce more food to help feed additional global consumers. • Livestock also play a key role in converting otherwise ‘waste’ food (e.g. crop residues and by-products of food manufacture) into high-quality, nutrient dense protein for human consumption. This cycle is a crucial part of global food production. Large volumes of crop residues, weather damaged product, vegetable wastes and food system by-products that would otherwise add to waste and GHG levels, are recycled for human consumption.236238239240241242243244247248249250Food security: What is the role of animal sourced protein in feeding the growing world’s population? • LMICs have been left behind in the creation and contribution of the global supply chain as their farmers have not been supported to commercialise, instead they suffer from donor dependency (charity aid). • In addition, the population in LMICs are enduring low protein consumption with diets relying largely on highly refined carbohydrates, which means metabolic illness is on the rise. In Sub-Saharan Africa, it is estimated 25% of adults have metabolic syndrome. (2) • In LMICs it’s important to differentiate protein sources (animal sourced vs. plant) as it is animal sourced protein exclusively that delivers not only protein but bioavailable haem iron and other essential nutrients (including exclusive sources of several nutrients). • Improved efficiency of livestock production will mean the total global sector’s contribution to temperature will not increase. However, it will produce more food to help feed the world. • In addition to food livestock provide many other human benefits including a large array of pharmaceutical ingredients, wool, pelts, leather, hides, organic fertiliser and draught power in addition to acting as a mobile source of wealth, critical to LMIC smallholder farmers. • LMICs, such as Zimbabwe, are calling out for knowledge to deliver their own results by using their own resources and set of values. • In Africa, many of the drivers for raising livestock are also cultural rather than commercial and the more cattle that farmers own, the wealthier they are, independent of the condition of either the cattle or the land. So just imposing "western" solutions (as has been the tradition in the past) on such smallholder farmers does not resolve the dichotomy - similarly government-imposed regulations that farmers "must" appropriately manage their rangelands has not worked hence we do need to use proven productivity improvements. But we also need to find ways to encourage the farmers to take a whole-of-farm system approach (within the local, regional and global food system) to manage their livestock in a commercially relevant way. • The solution for Africa? “Conception to Consumption” - Build capacity (farmers need to see themselves as part of the global supply chain), train farmers, improve genetics, make inputs readily available, bring market to the farmers and focus on traceability and technology transfer. • As a sector, we have the knowledge and practices to create positive change, but we need to improve the open sharing and utilising of this information universally.236238239242243247250What is the role of meat in the diet and what are the implications of going without? • Animal sourced proteins are a high-quality protein source that provide the full array of essential amino acids and other important nutrients, such as bioavailable iron, vitamin B12 and zinc and therefore are a richer source of protein per gram compared to plant protein sources. - This is important particularly in LMICs where hunger and malnutrition are significant and, where supplements are harder to access, and the wide range of plant foods needed to deliver all nutrients would be extremely diverse and large in quantity. - This is critically important for at risk groups such as the very young, pregnant and lactating women, the obese and the aged. - Fulfilling dietary protein and amino acid requirements from red meat reduces the associated calorie consumption due to the unique high ratio of bio-available protein relative to calories. Reduced red meat intake is associated with increased carbohydrate and calorie intake relative to protein and is an important contributing factor to obesity. • The most common nutritional deficiencies in the world are iron and vitamin B12. - Well-absorbed bioavailable haem iron is only found in animal foods - red meat, poultry and fish. The removal of these haem iron foods from the diet greatly reduces absorption of iron. - As there are limited plant-based foods that are a source of vitamin B12 (unless fortified), those following a diet with little to no animal products, particularly women who are pregnant or breastfeeding, are at greater risk of vitamin B12 deficiency and require supplementation. • In addition to a drastic reduction in meat intake, which would see implication around adequate essential nutrients, the proposed EAT Lancet diet contains discrepancies around protein intake vs sugar intake. This will contribute negatively to worsen outcomes of malnutrition, obesity and obesity-related disease. • There is no consistent evidence that any one food, including red meat, leads to an increased risk of death. Instead, it’s known that a range of lifestyle factors have a significant impact on the risk, most notably age, genetics, lack of dietary fibre, inactivity and high alcohol consumption.236240242243244248249250How can we sustainably manage existing food production systems to the benefit of both nature and people? • For livestock, all the narrative is focused on gross emissions and negative impact however, this narrative needs to be balanced to account for the positive impact livestock contributes to global food systems if we are truly to define an accurate picture. • If livestock is managed correctly, we can stop having an impact or even have a positive impact on global warming by pulling methane out of the atmosphere. - Methane from cattle is not only emitted but is also destroyed relatively quickly. This means it’s warming impact should be measured differently than that of CO2. - Methane released by livestock lasts for 10-12 years and does not continue to build up in the atmosphere like CO2 which has a life of 1000 years. With stable livestock numbers, the amount of methane produced balances the methane that breaks down from the atmosphere. - If industry continue to build on innovations to reduce the amount of methane emitted, then in fact, livestock will pull more total carbon (methane/CO2) out of the atmosphere than it emits. - Furthermore, this removal of methane, by livestock, is not currently identified in the accounting of methane, only that which is emitted. This needs to be urgently addressed. • A healthy grazed grassland can create deep carbon sinks. Managing grasslands well also contributes to carbon storage in other ways: by enhancing soil health and water holding capacity to equip land to be more resilient to extreme events. • Livestock enable economic development of marginal land (country specific) that does not lend itself to alternate food production systems. - In addition, ruminant animals convert grass and other plants with low nutrient value and digestibility to humans into high quality protein, fatty acids, vitamins and minerals. - These marginal lands have an environmental function and livestock producers for quite some years have been putting practices in place to protect and enhance biodiversity of these lands. • 86% of the global livestock feed intake in dry matter consists of feed materials that are not currently edible for humans (3) Modest improvements in feed conversion ratios can prevent further expansion of arable land dedicated to feed production. • The Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef (GRSB) and other regional programmes such as the European Roundtable for Beef Sustainability (ERBS) (4) was established to set clear goals for the reduction of the environmental footprint of cattle and to improve the welfare of the animal and the farmer. Together these organisations have influence on beef produced across the globe. In the instance of the ERBS, national platforms consisting of farming groups, processors, government, retailers, and NGO’s, apply to ERBS for recognition, then implement their activity plans and finally report annually against their progress. This process drives sharing of innovation and provides transparency of the progress towards the goals.236240242243244248249250What is the role of the global meat sector in future-proofing our food systems and protecting against shocks and stresses? The farming of ruminant livestock has multiple public benefits including: - Delivers soil improvement, fertility and health through regenerative management practices which imitate previous wild livestock systems where large herds moved across a landscape. - Carbon sequestration by increased plant growth and long term soil carbon storage at increasing depth. - Optimising biodiversity through stewardship of natural ecosystems. - Nutritional benefits through highly bioavailable and complete protein, macro and micro nutrients. The high protein relative to calorie ratios of red meat reduces the carbohydrate proportion of a balanced diet. - Contribution to the economy. Livestock contribute about 40% of agricultural GDP and provide livelihoods and incomes for at least 1.3 billion people worldwide. - Food security. Ruminant livestock have unique value, particularly in LMIC, as a portable wealth store able to be utilised when required to fund essential and often critical needs such as health emergencies or access to education. Local livestock supply chains are critical for food security in LMIC with over a billion small holder farmers dependant on livestock for survival. • Smart metrics are needed to establish planetary health and human health simultaneously. Currently, foods and food systems are measured on environmental impact without any consideration on contribution to human health in terms of protein and essential nutrients required for development and optimum wellbeing. • If we are truly to understand what sustainable, healthy diets look like we need these metrics to track net environmental impact and nutrient density and diversity. - The point at which the higher carbon footprint of some nutrient-dense foods is offset by their higher nutritional value needs to be a priority area for additional research. • The livestock industry is the only food industry to be measured on gross annual GHG emissions, we need to be measured also on gross annual carbon sequestration to understand what the net annual GHG emissions are for the whole farm business. - Globally, industry need to align on this and push for net annual GHG emissions to be measured. • Meat and Livestock Australia analysis shows that the sheepmeat industry in Australia is nearly carbon neutral. - The point was made that we need to be climate neutral rather than carbon neutral. Carbon is only one element of the climate challenge, and thus focusing on carbon alone is not likely to enable climate targets to be met. • There needs to be recognition of the innovation that has taken place so far within industry and consideration and support needs to be given to allow for continued innovation which will be impactful in mitigating GHG emissions even further. - AHDB highlighted a project they are working on - Envirobench, they are using feed conversion ratio as a proxy to drive productivity in the sector, and Envirobench will enable farmers to make decisions and measure trade-offs between nitrogen and carbon. - Feeding livestock, a seaweed supplement called FutureFeed could simultaneously help to secure global food security and fight climate change by reducing powerful greenhouse gas emissions. (5) • A US example - removing animals from US agriculture would reduce gross agricultural GHG emissions by a negligible amount but would also create a food supply incapable of supporting the US population’s nutritional requirements. (6) • Globally there is a need for industry to align on measurements and initiatives to improve environmental impacts.236238239240241242243244247248249250How do we maintain a balanced debate and inclusive narrative? This group focused a lot on the nuances in the discussions around the role of the global meat sector in future sustainable food systems. The debate is often centred on the negative (gross) impacts of livestock on the environment however as outlined in this report, the total impacts are positive, and this is noticeably missing in a public arena. Industry needs to take on the challenge of communicating the good work and the total benefits delivered internally to ensure everyone in the sector has the awareness and understanding, as well as communicating to the wider public. It is industry’s job to ensure the total picture is depicted but the group recognised support is needed from actors outside of industry to ensure this is heard. There also seems to be a lack of trust by the public in the science. This could be due to the boundless information available via social channels or by the conflicting science they see governments and global institutions arguing over in public arenas. Regardless of industry we all share the same common goal and the same values, we just have different views about how we can solve issues to get there. Perhaps it’s less about attacking opposition and instead align, publicly, on these common goals and focus on how we can, collectively, achieve them.237238239240241242243247250The dialogue also raised concerns that any sustainable, natural and low waste food production system was being focussed on at a time when so much effort is required to address hunger and food waste. It was highlighted that every hour over 1,000 people die because of hunger – and in every hour almost 150,000 tonnes of food go to waste – that is 142 tonnes of food wasted for every life lost to hunger. The other consistent theme was around better alignment of industry in a pre-competitive space. The global livestock sector adds to the confusion around the role we play in food systems as we lack a precompetitive narrative and instead pit production systems, for example, against each other. If we require support from other actors to share our total contribution which we believe to be positive to the public, there is also a job for us to do in aligning our own work.

2021-06-08 23:54:34205Stage 2https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/14583/33

40224827378101432545828291604765016152018504204211012282141412710372905103

The Brazilian National Dialogue was organized by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MRE/MoFA) with active participation from different areas of the federal government that are responsible for the main issues related food system policy. Special consideration was given to specific characteristics of the Brazilian food system and the Brazilian legislation on Food and Nutrition Security. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs was responsible for convening the dialogue. The Ministry of Citizenship (MC); the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply (MAPA); the Ministry of Health (MS); the Ministry of the Environment (MMA) and the Advisory Counsel of the Chief of Staff of the Presidency (Casa Civil) were the main partners during the process of organizing the Dialogue. The Ministry of Education (MEC) – mostly through the National Foundation for the Development of Education (FNDE), which is the responsible area for the National School Feeding Program (PNAE) – and the Office of the UN in Brasília were also important partners. Brazil opted to conduct a multi-stakeholder organization process for the National Dialogue, in order to encompass the various unique perspectives each area can contribute to the discussion. Such multi-stakeholder approach was reflected at the National Dialogue, which benefited from the participation of different actors involved with food systems, varying from civil society to producers’ associations and from small informal institutions to big international companies. The government created a dedicated website to disseminate information about the National Dialogue and the Food Systems Summit, including reference documents elaborated by the competent ministries to help guide the debate. Regular and periodic announcements about the Dialogue were transmitted through social media. Inscription for the National Dialogue was made through an on-line form, that was available in the dedicated website for about 10 days. The video-conference was held through Zoom and transmitted by YouTube and Facebook for the wider public.Brazil chose to convene a dialogue that was as open and inclusive as possible. Taking into consideration time constraints and the epidemiological situation due to the COVID-19 pandemic in the country, the Brazilian National Dialogue was conducted in a 100% virtual mode, through video-conferences. The video-conferences dealt with specific Action Tracks of the Food Systems Summit. The first video-conference (“Promoting Food and Nutrition Security Guaranteeing Equitable Inclusion in the Value Chain”) was held on May 10th 2021 and was focused on Action Tracks 1 and 4. The second video-conference (“Incentivizing a Sustainable Production and Consumption of Health Food”) happened on May 12th 2021 and addressed Action Tracks 2 and 3. The third video-conference (“Building Resilient Food Systems”) took place on May 14th 2021 and was based on Action Track 5. The video-conferences were open and inclusive spaces for debate and sharing of ideas. After the opening address, panelists from government, the private sector and civil society made presentations about the main issues under discussion. Registered participants were invited to intervene orally during the event. All participants were invited to send written comments to the organization of the event, related to the topics discussed in each video-conference. The combination of the reception of oral and written inputs from different stakeholders was important as it reflected the gamut of views that integrate the Brazilian Food System and presented suggestions on how it can be improved.In view of the limited time available before the Summit, multi-stakeholder dialogues through digital platforms allow for wide participation of different segments of the society, productive sector, academia and the government. Such format is consistent with Principles of Engagement and offer an opportunity for dialogue with diverse actors.

NoTaking into consideration time constraints and the epidemiological situation due to the COVID-19 pandemic in the country, some of the recommendations in the Convenors Reference Manual had to be adapted and revised. Instead of thematic discussion groups, the Brazilian National Dialogue was crosscutting, including all sectors relevant to the Food Systems Summit debate. Likewise, there were no thematic discussion groups, since it was felt that the issues were interrelated and should be addressed jointly. Brazil chose to convene a dialogue that was as open and inclusive as possible. The dialogue was 100% virtual. The video-conferences dealt with specific Action Tracks of the Food Systems Summit. The first video-conference was on May 10th 2021 and was focused on Action Tracks 1 and 4. The second video-conference was on May 12th 2021 and was directed mostly to Action Tracks 2 and 3. The third video-conference was on May 14th 2021 and was based on Action Track 5. The video-conferences were open and inclusive spaces for debate and sharing of ideas. They benefited from the participation of different actors involved with food systems, varying from civil society to producers’ associations and from small informal institutions to big international companies. Registered participants were invited to intervene orally during the event. All the participants were invited to send written comments to the organization of the event. The combination of oral and written inputs from different stakeholders was important as it reflected the gamut of views that integrate the Brazilian Food System and presented suggestions on how it can be improved. These comments will be considered in the preparation of the National position to the presented to the Food Systems Summit.

234239240243244247248249250The National Brazilian Dialogue was divided in three video-conferences, which dealt with the topics related to the Action Tracks of the Food Systems Summit. This document focus on the second video-conference, which was held on May 12th, under the theme: Fostering Sustainable Production and Consumption of Healthy Food. It was focused on Action Tracks 2 (Shift to Sustainable Consumption Patterns) and 3 (Boost Nature-Positive Food Production at Scale). In order to reduce the risks for food insecurity, food systems need to become more sustainable, while ensuring quantity and quality. Technology must evolve towards processing methods that result in food that is not only nutritious (that is, that contains all nutrients needed), but that is also healthy (does not contain ingredients deleterious to health). Education plays a role in the choice of a healthy diet. A key issue is to supply a healthy diet at affordable prices and necessary quantities. Government action can contribute to that effect. This video-conference brought together panelists from different areas to set the tone of the discussion. The Ministry of Health; the Ministry of the Environment; the National Health Council and Centro Insper Agro Global, a private research center, were the main speakers of the event. When the floor was open for interventions, speakers from a variety of backgrounds presented their positions, concerns, and proposals on the discussion about the sustainable production of food, the supply of safe, healthy, and affordable food, the role of international trade.235239240243244247248249250Brazilian agriculture contributes to national and international food security relying on less than 30% of its national territory. Private landowners abide by the Brazilian Forest Code, which obliges the conservation of natural vegetation and protects springs and riverbanks permanently. Brazilian agricultural practices, such as no-till farming, crop rotation, and other techniques adapted to the country´s geography and climate have been perfected over the last 50 years with significant productivity gains. Brazil intends to continue to achieve productivity gains with minimal increases in planted area, through scientific research - in particular by Embrapa – Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation – and highly qualified Universities, as well as by restoring degraded pastures and fields. The pandemic has challenged the sustainability of global food systems and the access to healthy food. In this context, Brazil plays a central role in worldwide sustainable and resilient food systems, that contribute to meeting international commitments on climate change, preserving biodiversity and fighting against desertification and ecosystem degradation. As a major agricultural exporting country, Brazil has to adhere to some of the strictest international health and safety standards. Malnutrition contributes to bad health – non-communicable diseases. Changes in the average Brazilian diet in the last decades have contributed to obesity, diabetes and malnutrition. Inadequate food habits – insufficient consumption of fresh food – are one of the main causes of disease and death worldwide. Despite recent price peaks, the traditional Brazilian diet – rice, beans, meat and salad – is becoming less expensive over time. However, it has also come to include inexempensive ultra-processed food. Access to a healthy diet – that includes a majority of fresh healthy food – has been affected by the pandemic. The Brazilian Dietary Guidelines provide recommendations on food and nutrition to promote healthy lives and combat the multiple burden of malnutrition and should be used as drivers of healthy and sustainable food systems and public policies in different sectors. Sustainable healthy food systems depend on permanent policies that integrate health, science, agriculture and social sectors. Climate change implies finding new solutions to adapt to problems such as droughts, pests and excess rain.236239240243244247248249250Brazil has a sound legal framework to ensure sustainable, low carbon agriculture, including the National Low-Carbon Agriculture Plan, which provides incentives for the adoption of sustainable productive practices. Additionally, the national forest code obliges farmers to set aside a certain proportion of their agricultural land for environmental conservation, without any additional remuneration. Brazil will be a key player in feeding the world in the next decades, given the expected increase in world population. International trade has also contributed to reductions in the cost of food in Brazil over the last 20 years, as a proportion of family income. Domestically, however, measures and policies to promote better income distribution and increased access are still needed to ensure a sustainable supply of healthy food. In this regard, conditional or basic income policies, such as “Bolsa Familia” contribute to providing access to a sufficient, healthy diet. On average, consumers in developed countries spend a smaller slice of their budget on food than Brazilians. On average, Brazilian families spend 10-25% of their income on fresh food. Obesity and malnutrition occurrence go hand in hand with low incomes. The FSS should promote further dialogue between food producers, academics, technicians from the food industry and civil society representatives from the field of food security to reach balanced positions. The state has a role in providing infrastructure to avoid food waste and facilitate distribution and conservation; regulating the market through taxes and other policies; and income distribution measures, such as the “emergency income benefit” (auxílio emergencial) or conditional income policies (Bolsa Família). Family agriculture and small agricultural business can benefit from government guarantees and incentives, including the provision of distribution infrastructure, technical assistance and price guarantee. The dissemination of independent actions, such as community gardens and urban agriculture, may contribute to the sustainable supply of healthy nutritious food in specific localities. In order to leverage strategies for the promotion of an adequate and healthy diet and to overcome the obstacles identified in this dialogue, healthy and sustainable food systems must be developed, based, among other guidelines, on the Food and Nutrition National Policy and the Brazilian Food Guide. They must also be supported by inter-sector public policies and protective measures that guarantee the access to food and promote a healthy and adequate diet. The Brazilian food guides are of utmost importance to encourage informed choices and, therefore, healthier eating habits. Besides, the aforementioned guides have helped in the construction of policies and programs that broaden the access of the whole population to healthy and adequate food, especially for people in situation of vulnerability.237239240243244247248249250- Domestic food security and the role international trade of agricultural products. The recent rise of international commodity prices has been linked to domestic price increases of foodstuffs. However, over the long run, the increase of agricultural production for export has contributed to a significant reduction in domestic food prices, as a proportion of family income. - Use of pesticides. While it was indicated that excessive use of pesticides may be harmful to the environment and to the health of farm workers, Brazil is not among the highest users of such products relative to agricultural output. It is essential that best practices are in place to guarantee safe and adequate pesticide use. Brazilian government policies promote increased use of biological inputs in order to reduce the use of chemical pesticides. - Agroecological approaches versus conventional agriculture. The agroecological sector has been growing strongly in Brazil, however the products do not substitute foodstuffs produced by commercial agriculture. Rather, the sectors have a complementary role, assuring consumer choice and diversity of supplies/suppliers. - Distinction between family and commercial agriculture. In Brazil, large commercial farming enterprises are often family owned. They provide food for the domestic market, as well as for exports. There is often little difference between family agriculture and small business agriculture. Family and smallholder farming are focused mainly in the domestic market. - Role of government policy in health and nutrition. Government measures, such as the taxation of sweetened beverages may be effective in promoting better health and nutrition. However, the food sector is already heavily taxed in Brazil, compared with the situation in developed countries.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/videoconferencia-2-doc.pdfhttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/videconferencia02_pp.pdfhttps://www.gov.br/mre/pt-br/cupula-2021-sistemas-alimentares-dialogos

English version of the Reference Document prepared by the Brazilian Government to help guide the debates in the video-conference.2021-06-09 00:34:38https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Videoconferência-2-tradução-rev-DCID.pdf

2021-06-09 10:34:03204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/13718/1222629096100104107118125138148160174178185191200

10721031131122132

The dialogue was focused on youth perspectives and the calls to actions within regional food systems.The dialogue opened space for youth from different sectors to find common actions that would suit the future of the region.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The dialogue included the challenges within food systems in the MENA region from all action tracks of the FSS. Primary focus was divided among three regions; the Gulf and Yemen, the Levant, and North Africa as the challenges seen within these sub-regions are closely related. The presenters highlighted economic, environmental, technological, nutritional, social and cultural challenges within their sub-regions.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251Our main findings are that food systems should focus on local and regional challenges. Some outcomes displayed in this dialogue are not common discussion points other dialogues include. Of which are: 1) Need to invest in advanced technology in agriculture 2) Embed sustainable agricultural methods 3) Promote lifestyle education 4) Protect heritage 5) Address Yemen food crisis 6) Need to restructure food safety measures and implementations along the supply chain to protect consumers’ health and to avoid wasting food and resources 7) Implement sustainable agricultural practices 8) Need for green entrepreneurship 9) Circular blue economy 10) Using fisheries (seaweed, seagrass, mangrove zones) can increase yield by 25% and reduce methane emissions by 90% if used as feed. 11) Using seed bombing as a method to create feed for cattle during raining seasons Alternative proteins (algae)236The panelists all agree that decision-makers should have regional lenses on food systems and that global discussions and actions might not fit the needed challenges within their sub-regions.

2021-06-09 13:01:16204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/15876/41497984133194

252324141152046237

Our dialogue was organized around the central topic of how innovative financing can advance livelihoods while also building resilience for small-scale producers in Central America. At the outset of the dialogue, our convener emphasized that we need to (1) act with urgency to transform our food system and that we need to (2) commit to the vision and objectives coming out of the dialogue. Following introductions and two short presentations that highlighted (4) the complexity of the issues we face in our food systems, two break-out sessions were held to facilitate ample dialogue between participants. In each break-out session, two questions were posed and discussed in detail between a diversity of stakeholders. Discussions were forward looking and oriented around solving current problems in Nicaragua’s and Central America’s food systems. Following the first and second break-out session, representatives from each break-out room were encouraged to share key findings from their discussions as to (5) embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity and provide space for diverse perspectives. Participants were (3) respectful of each other's ideas and (7) trust was built between a diversity of stakeholders within the food system. Outcomes from this dialogue (6) complement the ongoing work MEDA is dedicated to doing throughout the course of the Summit. This organizational format ultimately ensured that the principles of engagement were incorporated and enhanced throughout the dialogue event.The Dialogue empowered stakeholders to participate in the preparation of the Food Systems Summit and our conversations were forward-looking, fostered new connections, and enabled the emergence of ways to move forward collectively and creatively, embracing the entire scope of opinions. The event was held in Spanish to encourage inclusivity and comfort in expressing views in local languages. Facilitators were trained in advance to ensure that the online space remained respectful for one another throughout the Dialogue. Participants listened to each other and were open to the co-existence of divergent points of view. Our dialogue also offered an opportunity to embrace the complexity of food systems in Nicaragua and Central America. We promoted a systemic approach to the conversation by involving multiple stakeholders to identify actions across the system together. The Dialogue brought together a diversity of stakeholders from within government, the business community, civil society, and research – working across the entire food system. In this sense, it was inclusive by showcasing many different voices and capturing diverse cultural, professional and gender specific perspectives. The Dialogue add-value to existing policy processes and initiatives by providing an opportunity to share promising innovations, connect stakeholders, and broaden partnerships to transform food systems for the common good.It is important for dialogue convenors to emphasize solutions-based and forward-thinking dialogue. This can be achieved by carefully selecting discussion questions and allocating plenty of time to explore them in detail. It is also critical that the invitees reflect the diversity of stakeholders within the food system to ensure inclusive and fair discussion. Fair and respectful dialogue can be achieved with proper facilitator training prior to convening the dialogue event. For support in the planning process and to ensure an organized and successful event, be sure to use the resources available for convenors on the Gateway platform. Supporting materials provided by the Food Systems Summit include a reference manual, convenor’s checklist, event invitation template, run of show template, an excel planning tool and more.

Yes

234241243245246249251Our Independent Dialogue explored two significant areas of focus related to Action Track Four: Advancing Equitable Livelihoods. The first topic of discussion for participants was barriers that prevent inclusive and equitable food systems from being heavily adopted, and how to use investment/capital more effectively to promote food systems that result in equitable and lasting changes to peoples’ livelihoods. The second topics of discussion focused on how current interactions between people and businesses within food systems generate smallholder farmer resilience and what practical steps can be taken to help strengthen the resilience of smallholders – exploring the role of investment in such initiatives.235241243245246249251Our Dialogue highlighted the importance of strong partnerships within food systems and value chains, the need for increased gender equality and inclusion within food systems, and increasingly sustainable investment practices that prioritize producer’s needs and increase producer visibility in agri-food systems. Partnerships and Linkages In identifying the importance of partnerships for sustainable, equitable, and resilient food systems, participants recognized that strengthening the value chain has developed capacities in the food production system. In addition, strengthening business strategies to establish alliances and cooperation between various stakeholders (technology sector, financing, NGOs etc.) was considered as a priority. Participants also recognized that partnerships have been fundamental to face the difficulties and build resilience in spaces where everyone can participate, including access to technology and information, technical assistance, and efficient systems for small producers. The search for alliances and complementarity among the key players in the food system has allowed small producers to access more profitable markets that help them establish stronger and more resilient business models. Participants identified a need for increased opportunities within these partnerships, including means of transport, increased marketing channels, and increased access to information. Participants also identified a need for the participation of financial institutions in forming and sustaining close partnerships with producers, recognizing that larger institutions and corporations are better able to adapt to external pressures and stressors than small-holder producers. Gender Equality and Social Inclusion Participants identified increased gender equality and inclusion as key aspects of resilient food systems. The lack of gender and environmental lenses for all processes and stages of the food value chain was highlighted by participants as a barrier to inclusive and equitable food systems. Recommendations on this issue included ensuring investment processes have a strong gender focus; for example, reviewing gender aspects when smallholder and producer organizations are offered access to funding. Moreover, participants identified resilience within agri-food systems as diversified systems with gender inclusive practices and identified the importance of smallholder farmers comprehensive knowledge management to better respond and prepare for shocks and risks. In recognition that small producers do not always have strong adaptive capacities to climate change stressors, participants believe that farmers’ resilience must be strengthened to do so, complemented by concrete actions by those with investment capital. The example given by a participant was that training in efficient water management practices must be accompanied by capital so that small producers can effectively acquire these technologies. Productive diversification should be seen not as a strategy focused solely on income at different times of production, but as an approach that also considers the risks associated with production, which will generate capacities to increase or strengthen resilience. Participants recognized the importance of disseminating the word ‘resilience’ so that producers can better understand what it means and work with it more effectively. Producer Agency in Investment Decision Making Participants identified the need for investments that are sustainable and that prioritize the needs of producers. For example, guidelines for the management of capital/investment in agri-food systems are often set by donors, which could diminish the voices and needs of producers themselves. Additionally, participants identified a lack of follow-up to existing investment actions, suggesting that indicators that measure and evaluate investments and results are necessary for sustainable food systems. Within the discourse of sustainable investment, participants also identified need for investment in financial education for market actors to increase financial fluency, including teaching producers the importance of creating business models. Additional recommendations include monitoring the credit granted to small producers to avoid over-indebtedness, and increased efforts to change the high-risk perspective that banks have on the agricultural sector through information and awareness of its importance in food systems.236241243245246249251Discussion topic #1: Barriers: Outcomes from the discussion of barriers that prevent equitable and inclusive food systems include the need for an overall greater awareness of food systems to identify barriers, increase access to technology, competitiveness, and productivity for small producers. Participants identified the need for in-depth understandings of local dynamics and contexts when working with local small-holder producers to overcome the barrier of producers being viewed as a homogenous group. Another important outcome is recognizing that the demands of financial systems are often not adapted to the realities of producers, and as interest rates continue to rise, access to finance and conventional banking mechanisms are not always feasible for small producers. Therefore, approaches taken must be both ethical and highly contextual. Capital: The outcomes surrounding the discussion of capital include the need for increased producer visibility within value chains and in both national and local settings. Participants identified that the national financial system must begin to make small producers visible as reliable customers and consider the supports/guarantees that buyers offer. Participants also identified the need for an increase in gender-aware investment in agri-food systems, discussing that raising women’s awareness of their role within food systems can demystify the risk and aversion that women producers have to investment. Topics for Discussion #2 Resilience: Outcomes within the discussion of resilience in agri-food systems and small-holder producers include increased financial support and partnerships to combat the impact of the pandemic on many development projects. Participants recognized that the complementarity of different actors contributes to resilience, where each can use their knowledge (in issues such as productivity, climate change, access to technology) and tools that allow producers to be more resilient. Participants also identified that, broadly, project objectives have been more difficult to achieve since the pandemic because they are more expensive. Participants identified an opportunity for increased partnerships for financial companies and small producers (as well as other links in the value chain) to accompany processes of capacity-building for producers, accompanied with confidence of the business sector. For example, many of MEDA’s projects work directly with producers and with the business sector. Participants recognized a need for further efforts towards fair trade and rapprochement between producers and final consumers to result in fair prices to contribute to the resilience and sustainability of food systems. Practical Steps: Outcomes identified within the discussion of practical steps to help strengthen the resilience of smallholders include increased training and risk management for small producers, increasing the role of women and youth within agri-food systems, greater producer control of imported technologies, and agricultural insurance. Additionally, participants identified a need for investments that facilitate access to inputs for producers at better prices, having access to the transformation of the product, and ensuring social improvements (including schools and environmental projects). Promoting the nutritional value of foods and encouraging consumption of local foods that increases producer visibility and market integration for small-holder farmers were also identified as distinct areas that require increased attention and effort. Recognizing the importance of relationships and partnerships within agri-food systems and value chains, participants identified the necessity of security and trust in ensuring resilience within markets, production systems, and investments. A recurring theme was the need for youth involvement and advocacy within food systems. Participants identified that it is necessary to promote actions that link youth to value chains, and youth involvement was listed as a practical next step for increasing the resilience of smallholders.237241243245246249251No divergences emerged during the Dialogue.

2021-06-09 13:13:58204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/17357/203

2754511211133

The Dialogue established at the outset that it was to not only achieve but exceed the Principles and uniquely integrated them as a design feature in the dialogue but especially the outcomes as actions of the dialogue. The principles were; Act with urgency - Organise and Deliver, Commit to the Summit - Join and deliver Be respectful - Our total focus was around the health and well-being of individuals, enhance resilient livelihoods and communities, and promote good stewardship of natural resources, while respecting local cultures and contexts. Mindful of Recognise complexity - Our framework is around reducing the complexity of delivering nutritious food Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity - Our stakeholders were completely aligned with the possibilities discussed within the dialogue Complement the work of others - All stakeholders brought something unique to the table Build trust - All stakeholders were transparent and completely motivated to participate in a project together.The Food Systems Summit is guided by a set of seven principles of engagement. The AAC Dialogue incorporated these into its discussions and can report significant acceleration of all of them, summarised in the Three Steps. Step 1. Nutrition. Basic Solution. The adequate human nutrition mathematical equation is half/50% fruit and vegetables, quarter/25% carbohydrates and a quarter/25% protein along with water and nutrients. Step 2. Nutrition plus Income. It is difficult to maintain the nutritious integrity of food along the food chain. The basic solution can be disrupted by both time, if drought stops production, and distance if production and consumption are separated. It is greatly disrupted by a city rural decoupling which requires a farm, horizontal or vertical, not a garden to produce in volume to feed the chain from farm to fork. Step 3. Global Fusion. The AAC is especially engaged in the interface with the community. Planetary boundaries fence the global farm, within which fusion from brain wave to global consequences is orchestrated by numerous human constructs to ensure human behaviours meet those required from family to global governance, including the commons. The UN provides the direction through the community derived 17 Sustainable Social Goals. As a contributor we will contribute in identifying and designing the actions. XRX-AG and XCHANGE is our contribution today to the Food Systems Summit as part of the Decade of Action to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030. The Summit “will awaken the world to the fact that we all must work together to transform the way the world produces, consumes and thinks about food.”Diversity is the key to a robust discussion. Our dialogue involved presentations followed on with questions, and then ended with a facilitated dialogue. Respect of what each stakeholder brings to the table is key. Having a relaxed environment with committed and engaged participants. Better results are obtained with a small number of participants.

Yes

234238243244The XRX-AG Distributed Knowledge Network. Agricultural Education Trends The rapid adoption in Riverina horticulture and agriculture of the new technologies of big data, IOT, digitalisation, precision agriculture, 3D printing, autonomous tractors and cars, robots, renewable energy, genetic engineering, drones and protected cropping requires education to catch up. This especially relates to the primary and secondary education as a feeder to the Universities at Canberra and Wagga Wagga and extended reality can marry immersive learning with experiential learning in this new era. The Big Data era requires big screens for both research and education purposes, inclusive of dynamic 3D projection. Towns in the region have or can have resources for local, on the ground, instruction linked by the internet and nodes to subject experts anywhere on the globe through a XRX-AG Distributed Knowledge Network. Locally derived data will come from drone surveys, fixed cameras, IoT, information and products from businesses and special projects. Local businesses and farms can support and help guide the curriculum most appropriate to their regional area, although the training will be for careers nationally or internationally. The development of 5G and the Starlink network shows that the future will ensure that regional NSW is fully linked to cope with the new capabilities of XRX-AG. It is proposed that especially primary and secondary school children, but any citizen, will have access to an Experience Centre in a school, local hall or business, to give exposure to the science and technology needed for tomorrow’s farmers. Critical to each Centre will be the capability of an XRX-AG Immersive Experience for Learning, coupled to access to reality experiences on local farms, businesses and industries. In addition, the presence of a terminal, node/desktop with links into universities will allow immediate exchange of new knowledge into the regions. This would include Dynamic 3D visualisation of Agriculture with big screen, small screen, AR, VR, VR video and VR 180 experiences. XRX-AG is the era of both big data and extended reality.Content Developments in grassland, cropping and horticulture plant management will be included. Generic engineering, new plant varieties, optimisation of plant growth conditions, water, nitrogen and phosphorus cycles and management. The protected cropping for high quality export crops there will be a VR experience of managing a crop from seeds to dispatch. Understanding climate and weather, modelling and understanding climatic trends and impact on plants and agriculture is central. Drought resilience a feature, as would rainfall and water flows in catchments. Carbon cycling will be central, from energy input, to allocation in plants, to tracking residence times in plants, soils, products and atmosphere. Design and implementation of renewable energy and batteries for on farm and local networks, its production, transmission and storage is included. Immersive learning content will extend from the paddock to the plate. Central to the program will be the markets, customer and consumer requirements. This would be for both export and local markets. It would include all aspects of food, production, processing, preservation, preparation and impact and linkage to human health. This would link to training in agritourism, with hands on experience in meeting, greeting, entertaining, feeding tourists. The use of new media savy, internet tools to promote agritourism and apps for tourists to explore NSW will be included. Uniting all programs will be the financial education about risks and rewards of all actions, modelling the carbon and finance economies. Career Creation The courses and facilities will be online and off line and available to all people of all ages, sex, nationalities, experience and background with immersive and adaptive learning. The approach is let the students set their own journey and pace of exploration and learning with immersive experiences invading all aspects of the value chain from landscapes to human health. The program will emphasise leadership.235238243244Ryan Young • Bring together people who study the problem with people who live with the problem to develop solutions John Clarke • Incorporate digital data and models into education to encourage better decision-making John Troughton • Action solution cluster: Wagga Wagga Framework for Nutrition Tim Brown • Create digital twins of farming land to monitor change over time (e.g. nutrient yields) Tim Gentle • Use dash boards to help improve on-farm productivity as well as improve connectivity with and understanding of consumers (i.e. using individual digital twins to inform food choices) Lisa Castleman • Use digital data to make decisions easier for farmers Andrew and Eleanor • Move towards real-time 3D visualisation Explore existing platforms and embrace the rapid technological change of game engines where appropriate. Robyn Alders Q: how to ground truth digital data? Q: to bring SDG12 into the discussion? Q: how to increase productivity of food with optimal natural nutrient density rather than just increasing the weight or volume of produce? Aiming to improve quality and quantity.236238243244XRX-AG Framework for Nutrition is obtainable with the collaboration and input of all stakeholders. Discussion topic " What the World Needs Now. Wagga Wagga Framework for Nutrition" John Troughton It’s all about Nutrition, which by definition is “the process of producing and procuring the food necessary for health and growth” Process – Digitising and Integrating all Systems and Actions. Link Self to Seed to Self. Producing, Procuring... What is nutritious food? The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends 400 g/day for their health and nutrition benefits. Insufficient intake of fruit and vegetables is estimated to globally cause around 3.9m/yr million deaths worldwide 14 % of deaths from gastro-intestinal cancer 11 % of those due to ischemic heart disease, 9 % of those caused by stroke (Afshin et al., 2019 Fruits and Vegetables Grow almost anywhere. Grow almost anytime. Anyone can grow them. Land free, commons Economics, for disadvantaged Energy free CO2 free Labor free Genes free, seeds or propagated Educational gardens are strongly supported in Australia by Governments and Industry Globally There are Millions of Gardens & Food Hubs that need the UN to Recognise & Support URBAN FOOD HUB & LIVING LABORATORY With 100+ species of edible plants,  Ōtākaro Orchard a free edible landscape for everyone, 1,000 kg of fresh produce produced each year, with 780 parks, 26 community gardens, 70 edible school gardens, 5 food forests, and 26,000 fruit trees on public land. From Field to Fork 1. Nutritious Production 2. Maintain Nutritious Value 3. No Product Waste What would be a desirable outcome of this? We need new institutions and frameworks like a global agricultural trading system that has sustainable supply chains as part of its mandate. We need much more investment in the food system, and we need access to jobs and at least minimal social protection for those affected by hunger. Moreover, in the field of food and agriculture, there is, to date, no institution like there is in climate policy, where there is a UN committee, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, which provides a clear structure for the interaction of science and policy. Australian Agricultural Centre AAC takes concepts, “Frame” & converts into actions, “Work”, FRAME-WORKS “Ensure” Action: To Produce the Wagga Wagga Framework for Nutrition (Prof von Braun) To Globally Educate, Enable and Execute Actions to Produce Nutritious Food for All Digital technologies for communication and education Digital technologies to allow farmers to sell their products with minimum transaction costs, addressing market failures. Digital technologies will be critical for the Wagga Wagga Framework for Nutrition and plant breeding. 1. Digitise and fuse processes from Seed to Field to Fork 2. Digitise and fuse into processes from Faculty to Farm 3. XCHANGE products, goods or services digitally 4 Digitise, visualise in 3D, video and XCHANGE knowledge by bringing the farm into the house or laboratory or the laboratory onto the farm 5. Incorporate Brain to Biosphere issues into the Digital Circular Economy, communities, farms and gardens from Bega to Botswana to Brazil 1.To take the nutrition message globally, “the processes of production and procurement of the food necessary for health and growth”, into all farms, schools, homes, villages and the food chain. Through XRX-AG. Supporting field staff. From SELF TO SEED TO SELF 2. Win the hearts and minds of the front line farmers and food chain managers and workers. 3. Provide solutions for the hungry, the farmers, food safety, those optimising the food chain. 4. Bring the farms, digitally, into the homes, companies and labs to engage with global experts and revitalise through XCHANGE. Embellish and Visualise the Digital Sister. 5. Return a revitalised, reprogrammed package ready for education, enablement and execution.236238243244Farming Smarter –a soils project for the next generation Lisa Castleman & Rebecca Waalkens Ag Services Team Riverina Local Land Services Why set goals for land-holders? How do you achieve a goal if you don’t set it? Offer landholders on-farm data with science and advisory support We target lime rates which will raise the pH to either 5.2 or 5.8, Our ultimate goal is to raise the soil pH above 5.5, in the 5.5-6.0 range Remember: Acidity needs to be saturated before excess alkali can be produced Lime particles do not move beyond where they were surface applied or incorporated Only excess alkali can move into soil solution and then to depths below the topsoil We also need there to be a soil solution for amelioration to occur Soil moisture and significant rainfall events are important for deeper movement Ensuring a healthy pasture Management factors include:  ameliorating soil pH underlying soil fertility and the addition of inputs  disease and pest management species & cultivar selection  grazing management Seasonal factors such as climate-rainfall, temperature, length of growing season. 236238243244Tim Brown - Director Austraian Plant Phenomics Facility, ANU Node. From Lab to field to farm: Envisioning a continental scale Digital Twin of Australia as infrastructure for enabling a carbon neutral future. We face a triple threat this century Food Security Biodiversity Climate Change Agriculture plays a significant role in all these issues. Carbon neutral is vastly insufficient - Carbon drawdown is a necessity (Changing farming practices) Tackling the challenges of the 21st century with National Infrastructure What can we build - open infrastructure platform for managing data How we can build it - IoT sensors can push precision environmental data to the cloud for every farm/ modern farm equipment/automated drone flights/ privacy can be built in so users use their own data What this enables - Researchers & Breeders: supports continental scale analysis & provides caor infrastructure field trials/ provides farmers with low barrier to entry access to benefits of digital agriculture/ Industry can value-add by building commercial offerings off this infrastructure/ remove4s needs for startups to build full platforms from scratch; enables low-risk/low-cost startu ecosystem . Envisioning the future by looking back. Some tech solutions for building the future - High resolution, high frequency satellite data/Tools for making sense of big data/ Standardising drone and other 3D data. Linking open projects enables scalable solutions Continental scale datasets enable amazing things with ML/AI How we architect infrastructure has a huge impact on outcomes - we need to build an "Internet" layer for data sharing, then innovate on top of that Looking to the Future - Our current tools for data visualisation and managment aren't sufficient for these datasets. Use of gaming systems and digital twins Real time global simulations already exist How will we create the new tools and interfaces that enable the next generation of ecosystem research?236238239243244Tim Gentle - Think Digital XR Trends & Adoption - Is Agriculture Ready? Adoption of XR Agriculture Improve, Safety, Training, education, Marketing, Communication Safe Animal Handling Bio Security Training Australian Agricultural Centre Virtual Campus - Hands on learning by doing. Big opportunity is to increase productivity using XR technologies in agriculture Capturing lots of Data creating data insights 2021 - X - XR Wearings and AI Robotics, use of AR wearables Location specific data - IOT Sensors, Cattle tags, NDVI, Soil Data, Tasks and Instructions, Remote Assistance End Users - Producers and their teams, consultants, corporates, government, education Digital Twins, virtual field days Agriculture + Immersive technology + Communication + Business236238243244Eleanor gates-Stuart & Andrew Hagan Charles Sturt University Creative Industries - extended Reality Collaborative Artistry in Action - Animation and visual effects - Real-Time Visualisation Collaborate with CSU Agripark & Farm Goes beyond story-telling to story living. The XRC empowers bold new research by dissolving distance. We can reduce the perceptual distance between us, be empathetic to alternate points of view, accelerate understanding, and reduce the time from concept to reality. The XRC enables research that can lower physical, environmental or financial risk while achieving high-impact outputs with meaningful societal engagement.236238243244John Clarke Research Team Leader, Regional Projections CSIRO Climate Change Take 2 Climate models do a good job of projecting plausible future climates Climate projections are not forecasts A range of future climates are possible and this will always be so Our actions and impact on Climate Change is in place and will play out for the next 20 years, we just have to stop further damage.237238243244Agriculture generates high volumes of Ag data that is required to be communicated to achieve these goals. Fortunately, in parallel, satellite and communications systems and devices provide the high volume pipe for universal connectivity in real time. This multidirectional communication between all parts of the food system, including food production and nutrition scientists, farmers, transporters, economists, bankers, processors, marketers and consumers, will ensure knowledge is always in any hands, in the right form at all times. Digital Farm Twin, Digital Agriculture Twin plus edge computing Our dialogue saw a snapshot of a rapidly growing and expanding Fusion that matches an expanding nutritional food demand to the supply of food products designed to ensure “Good Health and Well- Being”. The algorithm for good health is transferred back down the food chain to production and in the process meets multiple SGD goals, from 1-17, especially to ensure resilient and sustainable societies, food systems and healthy citizens.There is an amazing food story to tell. From education to application our goal is to capture food data at source, analyse, edge compute, fuse, distribute, create digital twin farms and apply it in all parts of the the food industry, from farm to fork. XR is about implementation, it will personalise the information to each individual from student, to farmer to researcher to policy maker, resulting in actions. Let’s see it. A Celebration of Fusion.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/IMG-5304-scaled.jpghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/IMG-5303-scaled.jpghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/IMG-5302-scaled.jpghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Screen-Shot-2021-05-13-at-2.23.30-pm.pnghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Regional-Education-for-Future-Agriculture-Flyer2-1-scaled.jpghttps://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Screen-Shot-2021-06-09-at-3.44.28-pm.pnghttp://www.australianagriculturalcentre.com

The Australian Agricultural Centre supports The UN Food Systems Summit and especially the goal “it will awaken the world to the fact that we all must work together to transform the way the world produces, consumes and thinks about food.” It especially addressed, “Action 1 Ensure Access to Safe and Nutritious food for All” The AAC Game Changing Framework for Food, with XRX-AG and XCHANGE The AAC sees urgency in the establishment of such an entity to immediately 1. conduct educational classes to ensure the Framework and its construction is properly developed to include XRX-AG and XCHANGE 2. establish the framework with input from multiple sources and extend to a universal, international operational system. 3. implement at least 3 pilot schemes building on existing entities to demonstrate the approach in a school setting, community garden and commercial operation. The Australian Agricultural Centre through the Dialogue established a Game Changing Framework to unite all peoples and transform the way the world produces, consumes and thinks about food. It uniquely integrated the three dimensions of food, each with specialised but disparate players 1. the micro nutrients in the food to the macro, gardens and farms. 2. the seed to the savoury foods that are eaten. From farm to fork 3. the research laboratories to the steps in the food chain to ensure innovation and nutritious food 2021-06-10 01:39:31https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/DAWE-.pdf

2021-06-09 14:10:02204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/21759/98153189193201202

275866111311113552

All principles were adhered to in our DialogueWe rely on mutual respect while speaking and listeningNo

Yes

234240241242243244245246248251Theme; The main theme of the webinar is to discuss the reality of the state of the smallholder farmers right now and evaluate what are the discrepancies in their involvement in food systems dialogues. What should be transformed to ensure smallholder farmers practice climate smart agriculture?. Smallholder farmers plays an important role in these ongoing discussion, are they being involved effectively? Smallholder farmers are able to reverse the trend of broken food systems if they are given a chance to speak for themselves. We stress about regeneration initiatives, agri-tech, and agroforestry etc, does smallholder farmers aware of these initiatives? If not! How are we going to assist them make their voice heard and counted? Objectives • To highlight the current setbacks that hinder smallholder farmers in agriculture. • Policy makers should create a space for smallholder farmers to engage effectively in the agriculture issues. • Explore ways and opportunities available in climate smart agriculture particularly in Regenerative Agriculture and Agroforestry. • To mobilize governments and policy makers to recognize the role smallholder farmers play in feeding the world.235238239240241242244245246248251Expected Outcomes • To get the governments, organizations and private sector partners to put young people first in Agriculture sector. • To realize the involvement of young people in agriculture as a means of increasing youth employment and scaling of climate smart agriculture initiatives.  Investors, governments, decision makers should invest in farmers led agricultural initiatives to assist them fight climate change, transform broken food systems and heal our planet.  Farmers empowerment in agriculture sector is a debatable issue since most of the farmers are left behind in these important moments. Creating awareness to smallholder farmers in the grassroots level is very crucial.  Smallholder farmers should be drivers of change in Agriculture sector. School clubs should be established to students in order to transmit ideas first hand during early years of school.236239240241242243244245248i. Smallholder Farmers needs digital technology in agriculture ii. Smallholder Farmers needs natural methods to assist their depleted soil so that they can be able to improve soil health and increase income. iii. Smallholder farmers need regenerative agriculture trainings and education to know modern ways of agriculture. iv. Smallholder farmers needs to be empowered in terms of finance and loans to have access to their money. v. Associations for crop harvest stations in order to assist them in deciding the price of their crops produces. vi. Smallholder farmers needs seed banks savers to be established in their villages and communities. vii. The government should assist smallholder farmers in setting up policies that are friendly for them.237238239240241242243244245246248249251Areas of divergence Areas of divergence that emerged during our Dialogue. An area of divergence is an issue where participants held diverse views, different opinions and/or opposing positions. For example, this might be related to a) strengths and vulnerabilities within food systems, b) areas that need further exploration, c) practices that are needed for food system sustainability, d) stakeholders whose interests should be prioritized. a. It was emphasized that smallholder farmers does not need chemical fertilizers, pesticides and GMO seeds while others said it needs time to undergo transition. b. Shifting to nature based fertilizers is not an option right now while others said it depends on the willingness of the farmer to decide whether to use chemical based fertilizers or nature based fertilizers. c. Agro ecology has been recommended as the best way to assist smallholder farmers especially regenerative agriculture and permaculture while others said farmers should be trained in modernized agriculture d. Governments, Financial institutions and Companies should work together to assist farmers in creating friendly infrastructure to make them flourish. While others stressed that government and policy makers has upper hand in making these dreams come true.

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/ONE-MORE-SALARY-FSS-Dialogue.pdfhttps://onemoresalary.com

2021-06-09 14:19:54204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/21766/42193202

178316124241225212

All principles were adhered toAbsolutely. We conducted Dialogue on mutual respect.No

Yes

234239240242243244245248251We explored the role played by smallholder farmers in food systems transformation, and their needs exactly. We were based on AT2 , AT3 and AT5 levers of change.235238239240241242243244245246248249251i. Young people needs digital technology in agriculture ii. Young people needs natural methods to assist their depleted soil so that they can be able to improve soil health and increase income. iii. Young people need agriculture trainings and education to know modern ways of agriculture. iv. Young people needs to be empowered in terms of finance and loans to have access to their money. v. Smallholder farmers needs seed banks to be established in their villages and communities.236239241242243244245246251The government 1. Should assist youth in setting up agriculture policies that are friendly for them. 2. Associations for crop harvest stations in order to assist them in deciding the price of their crops produces. Because so far business men are the decider of the crops produces prices.236238240241242243244245251The government should assist young people in setting up policies that are friendly for them in agriculture involvement.237238239240242243244245249251a. It was emphasized that smallholder farmers does not need chemical fertilizers now because, toxic chemical fertilizers are destroying their soil and food healthy. b. Shifting to nature based fertilizers c. Agroecology has been recommended as the best way to assist smallholder farmers especially regenerative agriculture and permaculture. d. Governments, Financial institutions and Companies should work together to assist farmers

https://summitdialogues.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/ONE-MORE-SALARY-FSSD-Concept-Note-Post-Webinar.pdfhttps://onemoresalary.com

2021-06-09 15:30:27207https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/7541/203

7444595639276133111231445132218175332331431411

The organizing team paid careful attention to inclusivity by striving to invite individuals from diverse stakeholder groups, sectors, gender, and countries. This entailed going through various iterations of the invitation list, each convening institution drawing on their respective networks. The team strived for regional diversity. The number of participants from each region were as follows: Europe 34; North America 21; Latin America 8; Asia 18 ; Africa 18; Oceania 1. Facilitators were selected and briefed with care, to ensure they create a space for dialogue that is conducive to respect and trust. The discussion topics were designed to complement the exchanges and work carried out under the Sustainable Food Systems Programme. They captured multiple aspects and perspectives of the food systems and water nexus so as to embrace their complexity and linkage. Discussion topics also aimed to focus attention on some of the most complex or contentious issues.The Dialogue reflected the principles of complexity, respect and trust as planned for the design. Discussions in the groups were open and enriching for participants. The principle of inclusivity was very strong, as had been aimed for in the design phase, due to the fact that all those who registered attended. The majority of participants was from Europe but there was good balance in terms of regional representation as well as stakeholder diversity, including farmers. All participants embraced the principle of “acting with urgency”, recognizing the importance of accelerating the pace of change in their recommendations and demonstrating commitment to act. All were committed to contribute to the Food Systems Summit preparation and follow-up, recognizing it is an important milestone to catalyse further action on food systems. They emphasised the importance of continuing the dialogue on water and food systems after the event.It is important to pay utmost attention to the composition – namely diversity in the invitation list – and to plan for the fact that not all invited will attend. Furthermore, in the case of international online events, the “no-response”/“no-show” is likely to be higher amongst individuals who live in low income countries, where access to and reliability of Internet may be more challenging. It can therefore be useful to invite more individuals from these regions to ensure they are well represented during the event itself. It is also very important to select and brief the facilitators carefully to ensure they are not pushing their own agendas but instead creating a space for all to express themselves and listen to each other Finally, formulating the discussion topics so that they point to critical issues will help avoid rather superficial conclusions that stop at common areas of consensus.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246247248249250251The dialogue focused on the nexus between food systems and water systems, doing so in a way that acknowledges linkages to other systems that are fundamental to the SDGs (e.g. energy, climate, oceans). The discussion topics addressed this nexus from complementary perspectives: • The five Food Systems Summit Objectives and Action Tracks: o ensure access to safe and nutritious food for all, o shift to sustainable consumption patterns, o boost nature-positive production, o advance equitable livelihoods, and o build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress. • Key themes and challenges related to the water-food-energy nexus that are also emerging from dialogues held at regional and country levels, such as governance, cross-sectoral collaboration, investments and innovation and knowledge. Achieved outcomes The global dialogue contributed to the following outcomes: • Build awareness about the key role of water in sustainable and equitable food systems • Identify water-related propositions relevant to the five Food Systems Summit Action Tracks • Ensure water is considered as part of the major issues and recommendations that are taken to the Food Systems Summit through the various work streams (action tracks, levers of change, dialogues, scientific group) • Identify key issues regarding the nexus between water systems and food systems that should also be addressed in the water-related policy forums and agenda (e.g. 2023 United Nations Conference on the Midterm Review of the Water Action Decade) The 9 discussion topics were: 1. Food production increases and diversifies to meet growing demand for nutritious foods while minimizing water use and protecting freshwater sources in the context of climate change (thereby boosting water availability for other uses – domestic, industry, environment and livestock). 2. Water-related consumption patterns of all stakeholders in the food systems – from consumers to industry and producers – optimize water use (for processing and packaging, food loss and waste, etc.) to ensure sustainable access to clean water for healthy people and a healthy environment. 3. Integrated watershed and agro-ecosystem management allows access to safe (pollution-free) and sufficient water for food production and human consumption while preserving or regenerating environmental water requirements (forests, lakes, groundwater recharge). 4. The human right to water and sanitation and the right to food are achieved conjunctly by all people everywhere – in particular low-income households, marginalized groups, women and youth – having fair, sustainable and equitable access to safe drinking water and sanitation, and water for food production, processing, and consumption including food safety. 5. The resilience of water systems in the face of climate change is strengthened to meet the competing demands of agriculture, domestic use, industry and environmental flows. 6. The cross-sectoral and transboundary strategies and cooperation required to ensure water-food-energy security for all and ensure environmental sustainability are in place (jointly managed systems minimize trade-off and maximize synergies). 7. The governance of water resources (in terms of policy coherence, institutional coordination and access rights) at multiple levels – farm, water basin, country, region – support equitable access to and sustainable use of water resources for food, health and energy. 8. The investments – public and private – required to optimize water use efficiency in our food systems and protection of water resources are mobilized and effectively used, and investments in unsustainable water uses discouraged. 9. Science, innovation, and data access from multiple disciplines and traditional knowledge are harnessed to increase the efficiency of water systems for food, sanitation, industry and the environment.235238239240241242243244245246247248249250251In terms of recommendations for action, the following themes emerged across the discussion groups, demonstrating the inter-relations between all the discussion topics: No water = no food: Resolving issues around water scarcity, pollution and wastage is crucial for transforming food production and consumption. The demand for food is increasing: while almost 800 million people are currently hungry, by 2050 global food production would need to increase by 50% to feed the more than 9 billion people projected to live on our planet. However, the annual amount of available freshwater resources per person has declined by more than 20% in the past two decades. Whether it is irrigation or whether it is the water we receive through rain-fed agriculture, water is one of the food systems elements that is most taken for granted. The way we value and manage water is central to how we make our food systems resilient and sustainable for future generations. Food loss and waste = water loss and waste: When water is wasted, food is wasted and when water is scarce, food is scarce. One-fourth of freshwater consumed in global food production is effectively wasted since the food produced with this water is never consumed. Reducing food loss and waste is a clear entry point to mitigate water scarcity. Reducing food loss and waste optimizes water use. Food producers = water managers: The way in which water is used in agriculture is no longer sustainable. We know that irrigation accounts for more than 70% of global water withdrawals. Farmers, with specific emphasis on smallholders, are essential actors and food producers are among the world’s most important water managers. Farmers could benefit from education programmes, including through an improved version of farmer field schools which aims to ensure two-way communication, collective learning and co-design principles. Technical solutions and innovation: Innovation should incorporate the fact that water in agriculture is strongly linked to land tenure and distribution, climate change policies, energy and urbanization policies. Innovative technologies are increasingly important to manage scarce water resources, e.g. desalinization, drip irrigation, harvesting rain water in the face of climate change to meet the competing demands of agriculture, domestic use and industry/energy requirements. Innovative policies will allow better management of competition across various nexus domains, highlight trade-offs and synergies, and reduce conflict risks. Regenerative agriculture, including the storage of water in the soil, seed selection, rebuilding soil biodiversity will improve the water cycling in agricultural systems. Safe wastewater reuse in agriculture is a promising solution particularly in peri-urban settings. Governance: Sustainable water use is enhanced by integration of all sectors in conservation including farmers, governments, the private sector and the general population. Governments would benefit from access to high-quality data to develop sustainable water policies. Good governance is essential to mitigate negative forces that impact water management through establishing policies and setting up regulatory frameworks that provide the right incentives. This requires a departure from the ‘sectoralist’ policies to embrace a cross-sectoral approach including food, health, energy and others. Even though investments can optimize and foster sustainable water technologies and processes, the path to water security needs to rely on the right laws and institutions that work to ensure that water sustainably. Inclusion: There is a need for an inclusive participatory process that gives a voice to marginalized and vulnerable communities, indigenous peoples and future generations. Such empowerment and the democratizing of decision and policymaking can foster the trust between relevant stakeholders that is required to leverage synergies and manage trade-offs between different interests, while ensuring that no-one is left behind. This implies a fundamental shift in the way water is valued, in which water not just understood as a commodity, but instead as core to life, livelihoods and culture. Significant part of the traditional knowledge remains with communities that are detached from technology and bringing their wisdom to the benefit of the broader communities and making it accessible requires deliberate effort. Investments: Investments link to many themes above; e.g. investments in technology that helps manage water better, but need for a governance context that guides investments. This must come alongside a series of region-specific or context-specific indicators, indicating what each SDG, especially those relevant to food and water security, means for each regional setup in terms of investments. Investments can play a significant role in improving water security by recognizing the economic value of water, which should be an essential component for investment mechanisms. Public-Private Partnerships are an essential instrument within water and irrigation systems, but there has been a lack of innovative developments in that field. These tools would help investors identifying the direct and indirect impacts of their investments. The value/role of aquatic foods should also be considered. Connections between biodiversity and ecosystems and the benefits you can get from having a water management scheme need more attention.2362382392402412432442452462482492502511. Ensuring access to safe and nutritious food and safe water "Food production increases and diversifies to meet growing demand for nutritious foods while minimizing water use and protecting freshwater sources in the context of climate change (thereby boosting water availability for other uses - domestic, industry, environment, and livestock)." The discussion group was quite diverse in terms of gender, country, expertise, and stakeholders ranged from youth to seniors, innovators, public and private sector representatives, and international organisations. The group attempted to answer the provided questions with focus on ensuring access to safe and nutritious food and safe water. There was clear consensus on the: • need to foster connection between the food and the water systems; • lack of understanding of the value of water (freshwater system); • mismatch on how to treat the natural resources and freshwater in relation to food system; • food production misses a system approach understanding and implementation; • lack of data to better understand the system; • need for mapping our understanding and natural process, regardless of the many solutions that exist; • lack or harmonization of the legal dimension (water law, management, protection, governance, etc.); • need to shift as users and consumers our interactions with water and food systems (improve efficiency and productivity and reduce waste); and • need for higher inclusion of local communities, youth, indigenous populations, etc. In response to the above, the group highlighted a number of actions: • Map freshwater systems for greater understanding • Understand the status of irrigation systems as most water consumers • Actively engage local communities, youth, and women in the design, development, and implementation of solutions and interventions • Promote innovation, technologies, and smart agriculture to save water for safe food • Promote and establish the legal protection of water bodies, similar to forest protection • Raise government awareness of systemic approach • Promote the recycling and reuse of each water drop to improve its value • Produce nutritious food: shift from cropping food to nutritious food Surprisingly, no areas of divergence amongst participants were identified. The group was able to connect its thoughts and ideas to focus on the problem and proposed solutions.2362382392402412422432462482492502. Sustainable consumption patterns for water and food Water-related consumption patterns of all stakeholders in the food systems – from consumers to industry and producers – optimize water use (for, processing and packaging, food loss and waste, etc.) to ensure sustainable access to clean water for healthy people and a healthy environment. Participants agreed that water was key to food security and underpinned all 17 Sustainable Development Goals. Water plays a role at all stages of the value chain, and we cannot continue using water to the same extent that we are now. Sustainable consumption of water requires global solutions, the effects of which would be felt at the local-level. One participant highlighted three key areas needed to ensure sustainable access to clean water, which framed a large portion of the discussion. These included (1) developing a unified agreement in the water space on what was important, (2) developing a suite of solutions for the global community to act on, and (3) developing a people-focused call to action to raise the profile of water. A key solution would be to break down the silos in the water community. Sustainable water use comes from integration, with the involvement of people from all sectors in conservation. This includes farmers, governments, the private sector, and the general public. Farmers could benefit from education programmes. Governments would benefit from access to high-quality data, allowing for the development of sustainable water policies. There would need to be a paradigm shift in the private sector, away from a risk-management perspective to an approach of water stewardship. Additionally, there is tension in terms of trade-offs and competition between different parts of the water sector which needed to be addressed. For the general public, sustainable consumption would require individuals coming closer to the understanding that water is sourced directly from nature and is essential to life. It would also be necessary to focus on local-level and community management, which would require building trust among all stakeholders. To a certain extent, participants diverged in terms of to what extent they thought the key issue was water scarcity vs. inefficient use of water. Those who framed the primary issue as inefficient use noted that technology and innovation could improve water-use efficiency and water productivity. These participants emphasized that increased demand for water and food requires excess capacity. However, others framed the primary issue as one of water scarcity, emphasizing an increased focus on sustainable consumption through awareness raising. For example, one participant noted that the agriculture sector focuses too heavily on measures that promote “more crop per drop” at the expense of generating awareness around sustainable consumption. Finally, participants highlighted the urgency of the issue. One participant noted that the global community would need to perform a miracle to integrate water action into SDG 17. Another noted that deforestation constantly makes front page news but water is being lost at a faster rate, and raised the question of why we are “here now when we’ve known that we’ve had a problem for so long?”.2362382392402412432442452462472482492502513. Boost/increase nature positive production of food through water management "Integrated watershed and agro-ecosystem management allows access to safe (pollution-free) and sufficient water for food production and human consumption while preserving or regenerating environmental water requirements (forests, lakes, groundwater recharge)." • Obstacles: Corruption, psychological resistance, barriers to knowledge and technologies, lacking and counter-productive incentive structures, financing and inadequate enabling environment (incl. legislation/regulation). • Cross-cutting actions o Inclusion: include marginalized populations, including women, indigenous groups, and youth, and guarantee equitable opportunities through support measures (e.g. subsidies). o Awareness-raising on farming practices and technologies as well as sustainability and equity issues o Governance: Political, institutional and legal change on the national level is central to transition to less water-intensive and more environment-preserving practices. Regulation needs to be developed and enforced, e.g. through rights-based approaches and enforcing voluntary standards. o Effective financing: Effective financial mechanisms/instruments are required to support these changes. o Systems thinking: Stakeholders need to shift from thinking in silos or two dimensions only to system approaches (e.g. water-energy-food nexus) including climate change considerations. Address trade-offs proactively through assessment tools on the landscape level and food systems. • Farmers as managers of land and water resources with fair financial incentive structures around: Farmers should be seen as both water consumers and conservers as they are de facto managers of not only their lands but a significant part of everyone’s water resources. This responsibility/service – if done sustainably – should be rewarded through appropriate incentives. • Promotion of and access to knowledge and technological innovation: Farmers and other stakeholders need better access to existing innovations and prototypes incl. awareness raising and capacity building. Innovators need better incentives and structures to proliferate their innovations. Knowledge of indigenous and marginalized groups must be promoted. Exchange visits between farmers can be a very effective mechanism. Governments need to pass required legislation and can support through subsidies and other means. Innovations can also substantially increase accountability o Innovation partnerships and market-based solutions: Develop new technologies through partnerships of researchers, private sector, finance, and end users. • Irrigation efficiency and crop selection: Irrigation as key intersection pertaining water use in agriculture requires capacity building and technological support for farmers for more efficient and crop-specific irrigation practices. Potential decrease in water consumption of up to 50%. Simultaneously, promote water-efficient and nutrient-rich crops (e.g. quinoa) while avoiding those with strong negative environmental impacts (e.g. crops for certain biofuels that have high economic value) and their support structures. Non-conventional water sources: A shift towards using non-conventional sources of water needs to take place across sectors. Awareness raising crucial due to strong psychological resistance.2362382392402412422432442452462472494. Advance livelihoods and equity through safe water "The human rights to water and sanitation and the right to food are achieved conjunctly with all people everywhere – in particular low-income households, marginalized groups, women, and youth – having fair, sustainable and equitable access to safe drinking water and sanitation, and water for food production, processing, and consumption including food safety." Participants shared a range of perspectives to advance livelihoods and equity through water: 1) It is crucial to recognize the paradoxical nature of the global water crisis considering that we live on the “water planet”; in this regard, it was emphasized that the water crisis closely relates to water systems’ health, quality, and sustainability rather than to water scarcity. 2) Leveraging the rights to water and water allocation mechanisms were foundational measures to advance livelihoods and equity through water. 3) Advanced water management technologies (such as drip irrigation, sewage water harvesting and treatment, water desalinisation, prevention of food and water waste, etc.) and sustainable, integrated land and water management schemes were described as paramount to materializing enhanced livelihoods and equity. 4) The role of synergies across sectors and action tracks is central (e.g. landscape and value chain approaches, the water-food-energy nexus, etc.). There is a need of sound water governance, and tailored and coherent food systems/related policies, developed in close collaboration with indigenous people and farmers (e.g. the New Zealand example). Additional considerations include the “intergenerational equity” aspects (“if more water is spent now, there will be less water in the future”), resilience (“considering that not everybody is exposed to the same risks”), and data (“data enable water valuing and good water governance”).2362382392402412422432442482492502515. Build resilience to vulnerabilities, shocks and stress "The resilience of water systems in the face of climate change is strengthened to meet the competing demands of agriculture, domestic use, industry, and environmental flows." Participants focused on how to build the resilience of water systems in the face of climate change to meet the competing demands of agriculture, domestic use, industry/energy, and environmental water requirements. There was a focus on regenerative agriculture, including the storage of water in the soil, seed selection, and rebuilding soil biodiversity, all of which improve the water cycling in agricultural systems. The continued degradation of soil through agriculture makes droughts much more severe. Regenerative agriculture offers a solution following nature’s principles. The fact that the most agriculture in Africa is rainfed was raised, pointing to the need for systems that predict rainfall for small farmers given that hydrological patterns are impacted by climate change. Rainwater harvesting can also offer part of the solution. The need to use natural systems including floodplains was discussed, farming that is compatible with flooding can maximize benefits. Three main needs were identified: 1) Systems transformation – this transformation is knowledge-intensive, requiring research, monitoring and learning, e.g. small farmers can benefit from a better understanding of when and how much to irrigate. More knowledge about grey/green infrastructure is needed. 2) Better policies– since local action is critical, how can policy impact this level. Faith-based organizations and municipal level actors are key. At the same time, national, regional and global policies can help create an enabling environment. Financial incentives need to change. 3) Changemakers – change will come through the “movers and shakers”; these champions must be empowered to lead. The group agreed that water should be firmly established in the FSS, however, only one of the 25 “game changers” in Action Track 5 focuses on water.2362382392402412422432442462472482492516. Inter-sectoral cooperation to ensure water-food-energy security and environmental sustainability "The cross-sectoral and transboundary strategies and cooperation required to ensure water-food-energy security for all and ensure environmental sustainability are in place (jointly managed systems minimize trade-off and maximize synergies)." Proposed ideas to ensure water-food-energy security and environmental sustainability: - Stop providing free electricity to incentivize lower electricity/water usage. - Raise awareness to the manageable interconnections between water and food systems and break down silos of communities. - More sustainable ways of ensuring we have water security; e.g. more efficient drip irrigation systems, harvesting rainwater, and improved storage for rainwater. - Intersectoral national policies. Key messages: - The value/role of aquatic foods should be considered, not only land-based foods. - There needs to be more investment in RandD for drought-resistant crops, crops with high nutrition profiles, and improved irrigation schemes for rural communities. - Must consider the perspectives of farmers and communities who use water resources (and how they use them) when planning water management strategies. - There should be greater collaboration between the development partner and the private sector. Points of consensus: - For a systems transformation there is a need to both consider the small-scale, looking at the communities and farmers, and the larger scale, a landscape or water basin approach, to address several sectors at the same time; focus on investing in a large number of small projects, rather than a small number of large projects.2362382392402412422432442452462482492507. Governance "The governance of water resources (in terms of policy coherence, institutional coordination, and access rights) at multiple levels (farm, water basin, country, region) support equitable access to and sustainable use of water resources for food, health and energy." This session spoke of the ways in which water resources are (to be) managed effectively to address divergent societal and planetary needs. Participants from different national perspectives shared the ways in which water security is contingent on having appropriate systems in place to process and distribute water equitably. Existing systems would often prove unable to deliver satisfactory results. Multiple participants noted that the need for adequate governance becomes even greater when water resources are strained because of environmental pressures. Participants mentioned a range of factors negatively impacting water security, including climate change, pollution, lack of awareness about sustainable water management, lack of political will, and power imbalances between relevant stakeholders. They agreed that governance is essential in order to mitigate these factors through establishing policies and setting up regulatory frameworks that provide the right incentives and are conducive to effective water resource management. There was consensus, however, that this can only be effective and equitable when it is informed by the values and interests of all stakeholders concerned. This requires a departure from the ‘sectoralist’ policies that often define governance, and the embrace of a cross-sectoral approach that takes into consideration perspectives of the many sectors that rely directly on water, including food, health, energy, and others. Participants stressed the need for a genuinely inclusive participatory process that gives a (preferential) voice to marginalized and vulnerable communities and future generations. Such empowerment and the democratizing of decision- and policy-making can foster the trust between relevant stakeholders that is required to leverage synergies and manage trade-offs between different interests while ensuring that no-one is left behind. This implies a fundamental shift in the way water is valued, in which water is not just understood as a commodity, but instead as core to life, livelihoods, and culture.2362382392402412432442452492502518. Investments "The investments – public and private – required to optimize water use efficiency in our food systems and protection of water resources are mobilized and effectively used, and investments in unsustainable water uses discouraged." Investments can play a significant role in improving water security by recognizing the economic value of water, which should be an essential component for investment mechanisms. However, investments should not focus solely on efficiency but mainly on aggregated water use. Primarily thinking about aggregated water consumption and treating efficiency as essential but insufficient is critical for sustainable investments. So, it's important to understand that, in the end, it's the total water use what we are trying to reduce. Moreover, it is essential to adopt a holistic approach that avoids isolating water as if it were disconnected from other elements along the food supply chain. Water is unquestionably a necessary input for food security and systems, but further inputs such as seed, fertilizers, pesticides, soils, and virtual water should also be considered. When this package is put together, government, farmers, and the private sector come together to make better usage of all those resources combined. Regarding farmers, they must be acknowledged as the number one investor in food systems, and their agricultural water management practices ought not to be discounted. PPPs are an essential instrument within water and irrigation systems, but there has been a lack of innovative developments in that field. Furthermore, it is crucial to recognize that they are not the same as public-private dialogue, and there is a significant gap in the way this dialogue is being implemented. This is key to putting the "invisible" actors and factors in the spotlight, making water use more transparent to everybody in the system, help to understand who is affected, and creating synergies between isolated actions. This has proven to be effective in reducing social conflicts linked to water scarcity in Africa and India. In addition, efforts to spread and optimize the use of digital technology for sustainable management of water in what refers to monitoring and data-collection mechanisms are necessary for evidence-based decision making. These tools would help investors identify the direct and indirect impacts of their investments. This would be an excellent water governance approach. Furthermore, education efforts focused on stakeholders must be encouraged to promote sustainable water use because there is a widespread misunderstanding about the meaning and terminology within this topic, as it usually means different things to different people. When spreading awareness about water sustainability, it is essential to communicate it so the various stakeholders along the food supply chain and water streams can see themselves as beneficiaries. That is a great motivational force. Regarding the empowerment of women and youth, it is critical to give them leadership and responsibility by providing them with tools such as terms of reference and deliverables to help them mobilize and promote further engagement. Even though investments and related initiatives by different actors can optimize and foster sustainable water technologies and processes, the path to water security needs to rely on the right laws and institutions that work to ensure that water is sustainably managed. This must come alongside a series of region-specific or context-specific indicators, clearly indicating what each SDG, especially those relevant to food and water security, means for each regional setup in terms of investments. Global indicators are not enough.2362382392402412422432442452462472482492502519. Innovation and data for water and food systems "Science, innovation, and data access from multiple disciplines and traditional knowledge are harnessed to increase the efficiency of water systems for food, sanitation, industry and the environment." Four distinct headings emerged from the discussions: 1. Data and information 1.1. Data must be made available to everyone at every level. With a large amount of data available from all kinds of sources, the challenge is to make it available and usable to all. A global, open data platform must be made available ASAP. 1.2. Availability of data should be complemented by measures to make it usable by all that need and can benefit from it. Sophisticated processing, modeling, and analytics are currently not easily accessible nor have interoperability efforts resulted in a convergence. A deliberate and coordinated effort is needed to make this happen, with a slightly longer term than ASAP, perhaps 1-2 years. 1.3. Users of data must be bridged. Topic, sector, issue-based silos and fragmentation work against 1.1 and 1.2 and can undermine them. Bridging across these is fundamentally needed and must be explicitly addressed. 1.4. While the action by governments is essential, a strategic partnership bringing together the private sector, technology firms (including those doing analytics), and the scientific community must be sought from the beginning. Warning: sometimes, government-imposed technologies may be sub-optimal, outdated or biased (Central Asia is a historical example). 1.5. Farmers, with specific emphasis on smallholders, must be involved, including through a reformed/improved version of farmer field schools (FFS), which aims to ensure two-way communication, collective learning and co-design principles. 1.6. The work on data initiated by the High Level Panel on Water needs follow up and can serve/contribute to/complement the above. 2. Traditional knowledge and wisdom 2.1. Significant part of the traditional knowledge remains with communities that are detached from technology; bringing their wisdom to the benefit of the broader communities and making it accessible requires deliberate effort. Initiatives exist (UNESCO, FAO, ICID, academia, others?) but are not coordinated. This coordination can/must start ASAP. 2.2. Re-dissemination and incorporation of indigenous knowledge into policies and practices should be preceded by a validation process. Warning: Not all traditional knowledge is necessarily applicable or desirable. 2.3. Indigenous knowledge and disrupting technologies can harmonize. 2.4. The FFS described in 1.5 can serve the purposes of reaching out to and connecting with communities, validation, and re-dissemination. 3. Softer issues (policy, governance, nexus, equity) 3.1. Governance structures of the past century are fast becoming a barrier to technology and innovation: a reform is inevitable. 3.2. Policy innovation that is based on scientific soundness and that brings in private sector dynamism will trigger action in many domains involved. 3.3. Innovated policies and governance structures will allow for better management of competition across various nexus domains, highlight trade-offs and synergies, and reduce conflict risks. 3.4. Innovation should consistently look after gender equity and equality, smallholder farmers, and youth. 3.5. Innovation should be able to incorporate the fact that water in agriculture (and water for food security) is strongly linked to land tenure and distribution, climate change policies, energy security and urbanization policies. 4. Specific highlights 4.1. Disrupting technologies can make circular economy solutions cheaper (less investment), more profitable (better economic outcomes), more horizontally sustainable (across sectors/resources), and more modular. Support for RandD and start-ups essential. 4.2. Wastewater and water harvesting bear much promise. 4.3. Water quality (fit for purpose) is another highlighted topic. 4.4. Green energy solutions with water explicitly or implicitly incorporated. 4.5. ODF and multiple use of water are promising areas. Nepal serves as an example.237238239240243244There was no divergence among the participants of group 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. The only divergence was among the participants of group 2: To a certain extent, participants diverged in terms of to what extent they thought the key issue was water scarcity vs. inefficient use of water. Those who framed the primary issue as inefficient use noted that technology and innovation could improve water-use efficiency and water productivity. These participants emphasized that increased demand for water and food required excess capacity. However, others framed the primary issue as one of water scarcity, emphasizing an increased focus on sustainable consumption through awareness raising. For example, one participant noted that the agriculture sector focuses too heavily on measures that promote “more crop per drop” at the expense of generating awareness around sustainable consumption.

2021-06-10 00:46:13205Stage 3https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/23720/69

1063082152446129613838521443372235447159162

The Fiji National Dialogue was divided into five separate Action Track dialogues, each focusing on a specific Action Track. This report refers exclusively to Action Track 2 – Shift to Sustainable Consumption Patterns. The Fiji National Dialogue for Action Track 2 was curated by the Fiji Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) and led by the Fiji Convenor, the Permanent Secretary for Agriculture, Mr Ritesh Dass. Technical support for the curation of the dialogue was provided by the UN Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) and World Food Programme (WFP) offices in Suva, Fiji. Recognizing and observing the UNFSS Principles of Engagement, a series of highly consultative, inclusive, preparatory meetings were held in the lead-up to the dialogue with key government ministries and partners such as the Ministry of Fisheries, Ministry of Health and Medical Services and Ministry of Agriculture as Convenor. The preparatory meetings developed the dialogue agenda, framed questions and topics for discussion, developed a group reporting template to focus and guide group discussions and identified themes for discussion across three strands (i) Non-Communicable Diseases (ii) Blue Food (iii) Green Food. The Action Track 2 dialogue was chaired by the Fiji Ministry of Fisheries and opened by its Permanent Secretary, Mr. Pene Baleinabuli. The technical experts also led the Blue Food presentation. The prep meetings highlighted the Summit’s Principles of Engagement and ensured that they were understood and incorporated into the format of the dialogue agenda and the identification of participants. In addition to this, participants were sent a URL to register online where they were required to read and agree to the Principles before being able to register. This ensured that everyone read and understood the Principles and committed to the SDGs before participating in the Dialogue. A group of 105 stakeholders participated in the Dialogue from diverse, multi stakeholder backgrounds consisting of government ministries, civil society, international and regional agencies (including UN agencies),.As highlighted above, the Fiji national dialogue on Action Track 2 ensured that the UNFSS seven Principles of Engagement were observed throughout the dialogue curation process and its preparatory meetings. They were reflected in the development of the dialogue agenda and in the careful selection of participants from a diverse range of stakeholders. The need to (i) act with urgency, (ii) commit to the Summit and show (iii) respect for all views and individuals were highlighted throughout the dialogue preparatory process, and were endorsed by stakeholders during the dialogue as well. The (iv) acknowledgement of complexity in our food systems was highlighted, particularly in the context of Fiji and the Pacific, where the food we eat not only brings together as families and communities – it also connects us back to the land and sea, where our food is traditionally sourced from. Transformation therefore, would require a systemic multi-stakeholder approach, taking into account the fragility of our food systems and unique vulnerabilities to factors such as climate, environment, biodiversity and food safety challenges etc. (v) Embrace multi-stakeholder inclusivity (vi) Complement the work of others – This was reflected in the diverse group of 105 participants who were part of the multi-stakeholder national dialogue - from areas of science, business, policy, healthcare and academia, farmers, youth and women’s organisations, consumer groups and environmental activists. The dialogue provided an opportunity to ‘think outside the box’ and share innovative thinking, connect stakeholders and broaden partnerships. (vii) Build trust - The dialogues was curated and facilitated in a way to ensure a “safe space”, promote trust and encourage mutual respect for ideas and discussion.The Summit Principles of Engagement served as important guidance for Fiji in the curation of its dialogues across all five Action Tracks, including the National Dialogue. The Principles encouraged Fiji to think innovative, transformative and to draw on the wisdom of a diverse group of stakeholders and partners to explore solutions in our food systems, and to help advance progress on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In addition, the Principles were used to guide different stages of Fiji’s dialogue preparatory process and assisted in the identification of participants and stakeholders to ensure inclusivity and diversity. The Principles also assisted in facilitating discussions to ensure that all views were heard and respected and that any divergent views arising at any stage of the process were taken into consideration, listened to with respect and recorded.

NoThe Fiji national dialogue on Action Track 2 – Shift to Sustainable Consumption Patterns was held on 12 May 2021 at a crucial time as the country battled its second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic with restrictive measures and lockdowns. This makes this Food Systems Summit even more crucial to Fiji as it enables the country to study the challenges exposed or exacerbated by the COVID crisis and to find transformative solutions to emerge and build back. Curation and Methodology ─ In compliance with the country’s COVID-19 restrictions, the Fiji national dialogue was virtually curated on the Zoom platform, using a participatory method of wide, multi-sectoral stakeholder engagement. In addition, interaction and crowdsourcing platforms such as Slido, polls and the Zoom chat box were also used to crowdsource questions and engage participants in live polls and quizzes throughout the duration of the four-hour dialogue. One hundred and five participants took part in the dialogue that was officially opened by the Permanent Secretary of Fisheries, Mr Pene Baleinabuli. Participants represented government ministries, development agencies, UN agencies, civil society, international institutions, Pacific regional agencies, women’s groups, international NGOs and academia. Prior to the dialogue, participants received the following from the Secretariat: (i) Invitation to participate in the dialogue (ii) Dialogue Agenda (iii) Relevant resource materials (reading materials, video links etc.) (iv) Reporting template identifying questions and topics for discussion groups Dialogue Format ─ Registration of participants (online in advance and on the day itself) ─ Official opening address by the Permanent Secretary for Fisheries ─ Setting the Scene What is the UN World Food Systems Summit 2021? (Video on the Summit by Dr Agnes Kalibata) ─ What is a Food System? (Examination of existing Fiji and Pacific food systems, including strengths and vulnerabilities) by the Director of Fisheries ─ Presentations on Action Track 2 o Non-Communicable Diseases – Ministry of Health and Medical Services o Blue Food - Ministry of Fisheries o Green Food – Ministry of Agriculture ─ Discussion groups on themes and questions focused on questions such as (i) What are the contributing factors to unhealthy diets leading to the high rate of NCDs in Fiji? (ii) Highlight areas which need improvement in order to enhance healthy diets in Fiji (iii) What are the transformations needed in Fiji’s current Food System in order to address NCDs in Fiji? (iv) Who are the key players that can make transformation happen? (v) Are there barriers preventing this? ─ Participation and Engagement – Through crowdsourcing using Slido questions, live polls, zoom chat, zoom breakout discussion groups, plenary reports/discussions and presentations. Group reporting templates were also shared with participants to review following the dialogue to allow them the opportunity to include any information that may have been missed out by rapporteurs ─ Communications and media ─ The outcomes of the dialogue and key messages from the Fiji Convenor were highlighted in a Press Release issued to the media which received extensive coverage by local mainstream media and on social media platforms (Facebook and Twitter). UNFSS hashtags #UNFSS @foodsystems #SDGs and #foodsystems were used in all media content to ensure that messaging had a multiplier effect. Links to media coverage are included in the Attachments section at the end of this report.

234239243246248249The Dialogue focused on a comprehensive exploration of Fiji’s food systems as follows: 1. Strand 1 - Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs), Ministry of Health and Medical Services The 2011 WHO STEPwise Approach to NCD Risk Factor Surveillance (STEPS) survey found 0.6% increase in those smoking cigarettes (20.7% in total), 9% increase in alcohol consumption (30.6% in total), 8.5% increase in obesity (32.1% in total) and 0.8mmol/L increase in mean fasting blood glucose compared to the previous survey in 2002. This survey also reported that 85% of participants did not consume five serves of vegetables and fruits per day, as it is recommended. Overall, NCDs are estimated to cause 84% of all deaths in Fiji. According to the Economic Burden Report Fiji, 2018, the country loses FJD 406 million (almost 200 million USD) per year due to this problem. Fiji is changing its dietary pattern over the years, as dietary intake studies showed that more people are shifting away from the traditional root crops to a more cereal-based diet with high dependence on food imports. Fiji has joined 22 other Pacific Island countries and territories in the Pacific Monitoring Alliance for NCD Action (MANA) to work on a prioritized list of actions such as reduced salt consumption, trans-fat, unhealthy food marketing to children, food fiscal policies, healthy food policies in schools and food-based dietary guidelines. Major gaps identified from the MANA dashboard include the need for a National Taskforce to have controls on tobacco industry interference, trans-fat, food marketing to children and alcohol advertising. Other areas for action include taxation-based approaches, enforcement, strengthening legislation and availability smoking cessation support. Complementary actions will need more awareness raising and settings-based approach. 2. Strand 2 - Blue Food, Ministry of Fisheries The main focus of the presentation was on Aquaculture Projects, with huge potential in terms of Blue Food and currently spread out in the four divisions in Fiji, involving 470 farmers and 815 ponds. The different initiatives aiming to increase food security, improve the livelihoods of rural people and generate income and employment. The main initiatives include the Aquaculture Project (tilapia farming and freshwater prawn farming), the Freshwater Aquaculture Development Programme (tilapia farming and freshwater prawn farming), the Brackish Water Development Programme (shrimp farming and sandfish farming), and the Mariculture Development Programme (giant clam farming, seaweed farming and edible oyster farming). Limitations identified for this work include the delay in the endorsement of the National Fisheries Policy and Fiji Policy on Food and Nutrition Security. Ministry of Fisheries coastal development programme focused on sustainable development and management, lack of capacities within officers due to high staff turnover and budget shortages to conduct development and awareness programs. As a way forward, the Ministry of Fisheries would like to see the endorsement of policies and bills, robust awareness on the importance of healthy seafood handling, processing and consumption at all levels, enabling platforms for more open communications, data collections and sharing among cross-cutting agencies, focused research on local commodities for sustainable development, targeted fisheries development projects to include healthy diets benefits, seafood post processing and handling and capacity building of officers and communities on the importance of seafood production chain and the importance of healthy diets. 3. Strand 3 - Green Food, Ministry of Agriculture The situation analysis revealed that dietary patterns have changed and moved away from traditional root crops to a more cereal-based diet (imported foods), less consumption of vegetables and fruits. A recent study found that most food outlets within school environment selling sugar sweetened beverages and high availability of sweet and salty snacks in school canteens. Different studies show most farmers in Fiji indicated that COVID-19 restrictions adversely impacted their capacity to produce and sell crops while market vendors repo235239243244246248249A summary of the main outcomes of the Group Discussions is reported in the next section, however, below are additional findings across the three thematic areas: 1. Strand 1 - Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs), Ministry of Health and Medical Services The main contributing factors to unhealthy diets that could lead to the high rate of NCDS in Fiji include poverty and unhealthy food choices. Processed foods are cheap, healthy foods are more expensive, so behaviour change is a challenge. Other factors identified cultural and religious aspects of food habits, not eating balanced meals from the three main food groups, no dietary diversity, less consumption of fruits and vegetables due to difficult to access them especially during COVID-19 lockdowns and movement restrictions and lack of education and nutritional knowledge (especially for the lower income group and marketing or advertisements of unhealthy foods). Fiji needs transformation in the current Food System to address NCDs. Many key players can make this transformation happen including people living with NCDs, communities, research institutions and universities, government and private sector, development partners, NGOs etc. Some elements that are needed are a bottom-up approach, more technology, increased budget to build a strong economic argument, and building the capacities of many stakeholders. 2. Strand 2 - Blue Food, Ministry of Fisheries Blue food is around the engagement of women and other marginalized groups that are engaged in fisheries - they are critical in the food nutritional security space. The subsistence fisheries space (where women dominate) does not get enough attention, and needs to be better integrated into planning and development of blue food production systems. There is a need to fully engage women and other marginalized groups that are critical in the food nutritional security space, giving them a voice in the blue food dialogue. This means improving our data collection, and improve inclusion in policy development and implementation. Blue foods can contribute to healthier diets by replacing less healthy body building (protein) foods such as tinned meats and other processed foods that are high in salt and are highly consumed in Fiji. Promoting fresh food and less processed foods to reduce NCDs. Impact of COVID-19 is a ground reality in our communities where lockdown restrictions are affecting the production and livelihood of villagers that depends on fish and have turned to barter system (Navakavu Village was mentioned as an example). 3. Strand 3 - Green Food, Ministry of Agriculture Fiji has high dependency on processed foods and a change of mind-set is needed on our young generation through awareness and educational programs. COVID is an opportunity to realise the role green food can play, previously people turned to commercial crops such as ginger but after COVID people moved to other crops and home gardening to feed themselves. Road side stalls, which have been promoted during this period, have offered more opportunities to sell and buy healthy foods locally.Opportunities of e-commerce platforms, capacity, technology (biogas with food waste from the community) to have direct link to the market are also key. During COVID-19, the Market for Change Project (implemented in partnership by UN Women and UN Development Programme, UNDP) observed that due to economic and social issues in the West Division, there was an oversupply of vegetables and lots were wasted. Farm has to provide food and income shift into a more commercial stage of farming, 1-2 Ha; many communities grow cassava and other products that could be exported. Production capacity in the country is not enough with no supply consistency. Value supply chain needs more support with products that are market driven. 70% of products in the rural community go to the markets, 30% support the food security of the producers and their families. Strengthening of linkages among the seeds for some value chains and zoning our food production system according to weather and soil type would be important. Some efforts on scaling up urban environments for production, lower price fluctuations, support settlements, gender transformative approach for women-based violence, family work together in the back yard gardening and other initiatives to bring food to the table were also discussed.236239243244245248249Strand 1 – Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs), Ministry of Health and Medical Services Some ideas to transform the current Food System in Fiji are the need to transfer knowledge between generations and to teach the value of traditional foods at schools. Informal markets should be moved to formal. The endorsement of the Fiji Policy on Food and Nutrition Security, increasing tax on unhealthy foods, improve the research and development capacity and increase technology involving youth to address the complex food systems, and better data for policy and decision making were also mentioned. Private sectors as gate keepers of the food system could reformulate products to reduce salt, sugar and fats. The ministries of Health and Education should collaborate in the enforcement of canteen guidelines in schools. Multi-sectoral partnerships and Champions to promote healthy living were also discussed. Some of the barriers are resistance to behaviour change, limited resources, research gaps to design better strategies, outdated information, more action on Reproductive, Maternal, Newborn, Child and Adolescent Health to be included on Food and Nutrition Security, late detection of NCDs, unhealthy environment leading to unhealthy lifestyles and NCDs complexities. Some ideas to overcome these barriers are to shift the focus to positive behaviour outcomes, and increasing education and land investments for agriculture. Strand 2 – Blue Food, Ministry of Fisheries In addition to more inclusive policies, an area that needs to be improved to maximize access to healthy foods in a sustainable manner is the enforcement of regulations. For example those regarding sizes of fish caught and the allocation of the amount of fish per fisherman and marketing regulations for fresh fish at the point of sale (when fish are cleaned and cut up ready for cooking difficult to check if the fish is fresh). Sea foods, farmed fish and prawns need to be made available to consumers due to their nutritional value. Value addition including looking at "waste" and "leakages" in the blue food systems (especially under COVID-19), adopting traditional knowledge of food storage in remote areas and scale up investment within community current practices were also pointed out. Invest in technological innovation and transfer, focus beyond the farm, shift incentives to reward sustainability and storage or quality control. School curriculum may be reviewed with specific emphasis on micronutrients in fish that are healthy and edible. Local markets including virtual options with better information could be strengthened; better package labelling and improving transport and enhanced marketing strategies would increase fish consumption should also be considered. Benefits of eating fresh foods versus canned foods should be emphasised to the public (for example TV programme similar to Pacific Food Revolution). Finance instruments from donor partners could be also explored. Transformation in Fiji’s food system should include boosting blue food production to include community experiences such as the marine protected area (MPA), with spill-over effects showing positives, as shared by the Navakavu community. More awareness on the potential benefits for other communities is needed as well as making them formal through the inclusion of better licensing platform on fishing rights access. Barriers will include making markets COVID friendly in these challenging times. Lack of awareness in promoting attractive cooking recipes for blue food and prices and its affordability in both local and overseas markets. Strand 3- Green Food, Ministry of Agriculture In order to maximise access to healthy foods which are available and affordable, seeds distribution for food gardens need to be accompanied with a training manual in vernacular languages on how to plant and germinate their own seeds. Organic farming should be promoted by the government and linked to community engagement ensuring that they meet the Pacific Organic Standards (IFAD). Value addition and compositing would reduce food wastage.237239243244245246248249Strand 1 – Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs), Ministry of Health and Medical Services The money from taxation of unhealthy foods could be redirected to Food and Nutrition Security initiatives. Legislations to be applied to unhealthy foods should be mandatory as for the tobacco act. Messages from government, private sector etc. to the public can be conflicting creating confusion for consumers. Need to look through the lens of the local community in terms of consumption of high value foods versus lower nutrients at a cheaper cost. Some participants thought that COVID-19 has attracted too much attention/resources but looking at NCD deaths versus COVID-19 deaths in Fiji, there should be a better balance. Strand 2 – Blue Food, Ministry of Fisheries Regarding marketing practices, some tensions were highlighted between restrictions versus trade and producers versus middlemen (where producers are benefiting less in terms of cost). Another area of divergence relates to the need to be aware of mercury contamination in fish that could also have health implications. A gazette collaboration work between MOF and MOA enforcing the Ridge to reef to help lessening the damaging from feeding ground for fish through deforestation and over use of chemicals. People are too busy at work and cleaning fish is time consuming whereas tinned fish or other processed meat product is more convenient. Strand 3 – Green Food, Ministry of Agriculture There seems to be some divergence between prioritising commercial commodities and food crops. Some participants asked if Fiji has enough food for all, while others though that food exports should be encouraged (as for example root crops). The seeds distribution programme were very successful providing healthy food to many families, however some vegetables flooded at certain points in time and this resulted in waste produce. Some participants thought that pest and diseases should be addressed as this problem could affect export pathways later on and that collaboration with the Biosecurity Authority in regards to clean seeds should be increased.

2021-06-10 02:53:52204https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/15502/18

1210105611111191511351511191

We support inclusive multi-stakeholder processes and approaches within governments and communities that bring in diverse perspectives (including indigenous knowledge, cultural insights, and science-based evidence) to enable stakeholders to find alignment through understanding and to design policy options that deliver against multiple public goods across these various systems. Our Dialogue brings to the table a diversity of stakeholders from within government, the business community, civil society, and research – working across the food system from knowledge to consumption. They are inclusive and strive to showcase as many voices as possible, capturing diverse cultural, professional, and gender-specific perspectives. The multiplicity of voices is captured in the Dialogue feedback. We organized our dialogue inclusively multicultural which will help to create an effective dialogue including diverse cultures' thoughts and persepctive. This will help to have a broader discussion throughout the dialogue. Due to the global covid 19 pandemic and concerning the international value which can bring to the dialogue we organized our dialogue online.Our Dialogue commits to practicing what we preach personally and professionally to contribute to the vision, objectives, and final outcomes of the Food Systems Summit. The Dialogue empowers stakeholders to participate in the preparation of the Food Systems Summit. We create Food and Community Dialogue to enable the emergence of fresh and novel ideas to establish the ideas of food connects people as a new scope of opinion to add an extra value to Food System Summit 2021. Within our respective capacities and circumstances, we ensure to promote our dialogue represents multi-faith, multi-cultures and multi-ethnic communities or stakeholders to discuss their experience of food production and consumption practices that enhance resilient livelihoods and communities, and promote good stewardship of natural resources, while respecting local cultures and contexts. We work to ensure the Summit and associated engagement process will promote trust and increase motivation to participate by being evidence-based, transparent, and accessible in governance, decision-making, planning, engagement, and implementation within the given time and the idea. We, individual actors, hold ourselves accountable for commitments made with mechanisms in place to uphold this accountability.Yes, We learned them from the UN Food System Summit 2021 convenor and facilitator workshops and the UN Food System Summit website.

Yes

234238239240241244247248251Food seems the first of the essentials of life, our considerable biggest industry, our most significantly indulged pleasure, and sometimes the cause of death and deseas. Despite foods' material value, we here discussed and granted the idea of beyond its material value. We considered food has always been key to connecting cultures. From that perspective, we tried to establish the core focus of our dialogue embracing summit scopes the idea of food connects people and it will help to connect diverse communities bringing peace and harmony simply through taste. It is a significant fact that according to Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin (1755-1826) mentioned "tell me what you eat and I will tell you what you are" shows that food represents who you and what you are. We did not talk about the price of food but we discussed the stories beyond the price and how that food origins and came to the table after passing several steps. Food is not simply material but it highly condenses social fact. Our Dialogue tried to bring that social fact out and initiate peace and harmony in our contemporary society. Not only we further discussed how this idea enables equality and a sense of belonging and humanity in a broader perspective.235239240241244245247248249251We found that people love to try different food despite their ethnicity or tradition or culture. According to participants' ideas they often like to eat international cuisine rather than their own palatable food. And especially when they out for meals they connect with other people and network with others. This brings the key idea of connecting people through foods particularly memories and special occasions. Food does not necessarily need to be international but even local food also has a greater power of connecting people when it comes to celebrations like birthdays, Christmas and Easter. The flavours of dishes evoke emotions that allow sharing memories in a safe and welcoming environment. These major objectives have been found to initiate the scopes of respect, inclusiveness, appreciation, and resilience.236238239240241243244246248251Participants now aware and acknowledged that food identifies who we are and where we came from and what we and how it simply represents us. Some participants were being not knowing of how food causes us to connects the community and represents us. They may indeed try to read or listen to more food stories or food histories as a source of knowing food and traditions which are essential for making a safe and harmonious environment in a multicultural city And some people became understandable to be more flexible, resilient and respectful of other cultures.

2021-06-10 10:12:31205Stage 3https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/15760/92

673928191612196165

Recognizing the utmost urgency to take sustained and meaningful action to meet the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals, the dialogues are organized to identify the pathways to food systems transformation. We are committed to practicing what we preach in contribution to the Food Systems Summit. The dialogues empower stakeholders to participate in the preparations of the Food Systems Summit, while fostering new connections, enabling the emergence of new ways to move forward collectively and embracing the entire scope of opinions. Within our capacity and circumstances, we will promote food production and consumption policies and practices that strive to protect and improve the health and the well-being of individuals, enhance resilient livelihoods and communities, and promote stewardship of natural resources, while respecting local cultures and contexts. Respecting one another is the foundation for a genuine Dialogue. Participants in the Dialogues are expected to be attentive and open to a multitude of opinions. We recognize that food systems are complex, and are closely connected to, and significantly impacting human and animal health, natural resources, climate change, biodiversity and other related systems. Therefore, their transformation requires a systemic approach.Dialogues are an opportunity to embrace the complexity of food systems. They promote a systemic approach by involving multiple stakeholders to identify actions across the system together with potential synergies and trade-offs. We support inclusive multi-stakeholder processes and approaches within governments and communities to allow for the design of policy options that deliver against multiple public goods across these various systems. The Dialogues bring to the table a diversity of stakeholders across the food system. They are inclusive and strive to showcase as many voices as possible, capturing diverse cultural, professional and gender specific perspectives. Recognizing that issues related to food systems are being addressed through several other global governance processes, we will seek to ensure that the Food Systems Summit aligns with these efforts where possible in order to avoid duplication, while encouraging bold and innovative new thinking and approaches. The Dialogues build on and add value to existing policy processes and initiatives. They provide an opportunity to share promising innovations, connect stakeholders, and broaden partnerships to transform food systems for the common good. We will work to ensure that the Summit and its associated engagement process promotes trust and increases motivation to participate by being evidence-based, transparent, and accessible. The Dialogues are curated and facilitated in a way which creates a “safe space” and promotes trust, encouraging mutual respect. The conclusions emerging from the Dialogues that are shared in the feedback and other media are not attributed to single individuals.

Yes

234238239240241242243244245246248249250The “Local implications of global challenges” Dialogue comprises seven round tables, which dealt with the following topics: Biodiversity; Open Landscapes; Invasive species; Water resources & supply; Climate changes; Marine resources; and Waste. The discussions focused on long-term planning to ensure food and water supply to Israel’s growing population regarding the food & water quantity, quality and safety in light of the crucial need to protect the environment. Moreover, long-term planning to ensure sustainable nutrition requires cooperation and synchronization between different government agencies, the industry and the producers. The “Climate changes” table explored intensively Action track#2 in the meaning of reducing the local meat, fish and poultry consumption in different ways, among them encouraging the consumption of plant origin proteins, cultured meat or imposing a “Carbon tax” on consumable products, both local and imported. The “Biodiversity” table mainly explored Action track#3 with an emphasis on the wide meanings of biodiversity regarding the agricultural industries and their specific interactions with nature and the environment. Another focus was on the benefits that agriculture receives from biodiversity, such as soil fertility, pollination and biological pest control. The “Marine Resources” table discussed Action track#1 regarding the aquatic food production, from both fisheries and aquaculture. The marine-source food originates from four different taxonomic groups; Algae, mollusks, crustaceans and fish.; consumption of species of low trophic levels should become more dominant. Bycatch should be reduced or even used for human consumption. In the “Water” table the main focus was on the long term planning and the need to ensure adequate and equitable water supply. Concurrently with seawater desalination and the developing of new techniques, the natural water resources must be preserved and restored. In the “Open Landscapes” table the land designation was under debate; should intensive agriculture be the main purpose of agricultural land or should they be multi-functional and also answer cultural, ecological and other social needs. The “Waste” table focused on the different types of waste through the food chain and the need to identify the specific actions relevant to each type. For example, to reduce waste from crop origin (surplus production), the producers can rely on crop-price insurance.235238239240241242243244245246248249250A major finding in our dialogue was the lack of long-term planning in different topics such as water management (fresh water, desalinated water, reclaimed sewage water), land management, aquatic resources and invasive species. Moreover, different policies may be unsynchronized and this leads to confusion and lack of uniformity, mainly among the food-producers. More transparency is required in the way the government, the supporting bodies, and the producers’ organizations operate. Regulation and enforcement seem to be a weak link in all the topics discussed in our dialogue. Moreover, because of lack of monitoring and supporting data, producers and supporting bodies are missing uniform validated protocols. Innovation and technology need more financial investment in order to create sustainable agriculture. Agricultural lands are under continuous threats due to construction and infrastructures development. The main challenge is to keep the land for agricultural purposes together with multifunctional goals for culture, tourism, landscape and ecology. Economic incentives should be considered in order to develop the multifunctional uses of agricultural land, together with raising awareness in different communities for this goal. We must adopt a dynamic and flexible management of the agricultural lands and the sea resources due to the climate change and its influence on breeding programs or crops selection. The utilization of sea and aquatic resources is expected to rise and in order to minimize the conflict with nature and environment demands, we must plan a head. Use of the term “Food safety” appears to be ambiguous. Food safety refers to preserving soil, water and biological resources but also supporting the producers by investing in research and innovations in order to improve the efficiency and productivity under sustainable approach. We need to improve efficiency in agricultural water use by differentiating the type of water and crops type. The predicted rising price of water due to consumption increase and infrastructure development should be considered. Agriculture must be based more on treated waste water. The organic world-view should be an example for the waste handling and minimizing through all the steps from farm to fork. Israel has a unique geographical and political situation, which hampers the prevention of invasive species. International trade and import influenced by economical pressure can lead to new invasive species, for example with ornamental plants or animal food. Another finding is that compensation mechanisms for the producers are missing in cases of economic damages due to invasive species. The carbon footprint of meat, poultry and fish consumption in Israel is high. We need to improve the awareness and knowledge of the agricultural sector to their influence on the environment and climate change and we should supply solutions and substitutions for this sector and the consumers.236Participants discussed the Challenges of each topic, and their findings are listed in the "Main Findings" section.2371. The role of agricultural land – is it only for intensive agriculture or are there other aspects like cultural, social and ecological roles? 2. Lack of trust between agricultural producers and environmental organizations prevents mutual initiative and interfere.

2021-06-10 10:14:29205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/14692/172

248028124564010314041538051003602830832155100336302361111458223815346812

Se ha dado amplia difusión al proceso de la Cumbre y a los Diálogos a través de: - envíos masivos de correos con información de la Cumbre, actividades y eventos relacionados, a más de 600 entidades e individuos interesados - un sitio Web de la Cumbre https://www.mapa.gob.es/es/ministerio/ministerio-exterior/cumbre-un-sistemas-alimentarios/ - un buzón de participación bzn-dialogos@mapa.es - amplia difusión de los diálogos en redes socialesEl Diálogo ha sido totalmente abierto en la participación, y en particular se ha fomentado la presencia de grupos diversos de interés

Yes

234238239241246247249251TEMA PRINCIPAL :ANÁLISIS DE LA PERESPECTIVA LOCAL-GLOBAL Lo local y lo global son dos aspectos de la realidad actual inseparables. Las emergencias globales tienen un gran impacto sobre cada territorio, y cada vez más, hechos que acontecen en territorios pequeños y aparentemente inconexos pueden acarrear grandes impactos globales. Al hablar de los sistemas alimentarios, el efecto es el mismo, su conexión y relación es tan fuerte que cualquier impacto negativo a nivel global puede afectar mucho localmente, y viceversa. Y en el actual contexto de pandemia mundial, más que nunca, debemos tener presente estas interrelaciones: la actual emergencia global está teniendo un gran impacto sobre la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional de la población en situación de mayor vulnerabilidad. Entre sus efectos, destacan: alteraciones y dificultades en el desarrollo del trabajo del sector primario y la producción de alimentos, causado por el confinamiento; restricciones por parte de algunos países a la exportación de alimentos básicos; pérdida de los mercados de exportación de otros países debido a una disminución de la demanda; dificultades y encarecimiento del transporte; dificultades en la movilidad de los trabajadores; empeoramiento de los hábitos de consumo de la población – por falta de acceso a alimentos nutritivos; o limitación del acceso a alimentos a las personas en situación de mayor vulnerabilidad. El problema actual y global de los sistemas agro-alimentarios es multidimensional, y sus múltiples factores están interrelacionados. Afrontarlo requiere por ello una acción coordinada y un enfoque integral, pero también, la integración de los territorios y el impacto que el comercio a escala mundial tiene en éstos. Es preciso entender que deben existir sistemas alimentarios sostenibles en todos los niveles - en lo global, en lo regional, en lo nacional y en lo local – reconociendo las relaciones entre la singularidad de los territorios con la globalidad y las interdependencias existentes entre las fuerzas globales y las particularidades locales. Asegurar la resiliencia de los sistemas agroalimentarios implica facilitar la disponibilidad de alimentos procedentes de fuentes locales, regionales e internacionales. Las políticas agrarias y los sistemas alimentarios deben impulsar la Agenda 2030 para lograr el desarrollo sostenible, y sus objetivos, en línea con los ODS, deben a su vez adaptarse al contexto en todos los niveles, de lo local a lo global.235238239241245246247249251El derecho a una alimentación adecuada se reconoce como un derecho humano fundamental que los Estados deben defender, y debe ser el principio básico en apoyo de la seguridad alimentaria y la nutrición. Debemos transformar los sistemas alimentarios con el objetivo de hacer efectivo el derecho a la alimentación y potenciando su efecto palanca para lograr los objetivos de la Agenda 2030. Y ello requiere un diálogo social para integrar cuestiones tan diversas como los impactos en salud y nutrición, la degradación ambiental, y la situación y medios de vida de los pequeños agricultores y de las mujeres. El Derecho a la Alimentación debería figurar en la Constitución. Al igual que el estado proporciona servicios como la sanidad universal, o la educación, también debería garantizar de forma efectiva el acceso a una alimentación nutritiva para toda la población. La alimentación no puede ser un bien de consumo más. Es preciso reforzar el papel de los productores, en particular de los pequeños productores, en la cadena de valor. A menudo la formación de los precios se hace de arriba abajo, y los productores perciben precios que no remuneran suficientemente su trabajo. Es preciso mejorar la organización y la agrupación de los productores para que ganen capacidad de negociación frente a la distribución y los demás agentes de la cadena, y es preciso dotarse de legislación que proteja a los productores de las prácticas comerciales desleales. Es preciso desarrollar políticas que protejan a la agricultura familiar. Las explotaciones familiares producen más del 80% de los alimentos en el mundo en cuanto al valor. A pesar de su función como principales contribuyentes a la seguridad alimentaria, especialmente en los países en desarrollo, los pequeños productores son los más afectados por los retos que plantea el desarrollo, ya que suelen carecer de acceso a los recursos naturales y agrícolas, incluida la tierra, a los insumos y a los mercados – también a la información sobre los mercados y los precios, al crédito, a la mejora de las tecnologías, a los servicios de extensión, a la información meteorológica, a los instrumentos de gestión del riesgo, a la protección social, y con un bajo poder de negociación en las relaciones económicas y políticas. Es necesario reconocer las interacciones y las relaciones que hay entre los sistemas alimentarios, los territorios, y los ecosistemas, que afectan a la sociedad entera. Los trabajadores del medio rural están sometidos a presiones cada vez mayores; no solo ambientales, sino por políticas económicas y sociales. Por ello es de vital importancia apoyar la agricultura familiar, a los pueblos indígenas y sobre todo el territorio rural y las ciudades pequeñas.236238239241246247249251El Derecho a la alimentación. El derecho a una alimentación adecuada se reconoce como un derecho humano fundamental que los Estados deben defender, y debe ser el principio básico en apoyo de la seguridad alimentaria y la nutrición: para que un sistema alimentario sea considerado sostenible y justo tiene que garantizar el derecho a la alimentación. Los sistemas actuales no logran proveer de dietas sanas y sostenibles a toda la humanidad ni asumen un modelo inclusivo; y ello con vistas a alimentar a una población en aumento. Por ello, necesitamos un sistema alimentario que garantice que los alimentos sean adecuados y asequibles para todos, y que trabaje en favor del bienestar de las personas. Debemos transformar los sistemas alimentarios con el objetivo de hacer efectivo el derecho a la alimentación y potenciando su efecto palanca para lograr los objetivos de la Agenda 2030. Y ello requiere un diálogo social para integrar cuestiones tan diversas como los impactos en salud y nutrición, la degradación ambiental, y la situación y medios de vida de los pequeños agricultores y de las mujeres. Se planteó la necesidad de explorar la forma en que los Estados tengan una implicación más directa para garantizar el derecho a una alimentación sana por parte de toda la población, con especial atención a las personas en situación de vulnerabilidad - población infantil, ancianos y mujeres, entre otros. El Derecho a la Alimentación debería figurar en la Constitución. Al igual que el estado proporciona servicios como la sanidad universal, o la educación, también debería garantizar de forma efectiva el acceso a una alimentación nutritiva para toda la población. La alimentación no puede ser un bien de consumo más.236241242246249251Resiliencia del abastecimiento En España durante la pandemia, las cadenas de valor y el comercio de proximidad han tenido una gran importancia a la hora de mantener la distribución. Las políticas territoriales, la participación de la sociedad civil y la implicación de los consumidores en la toma de decisiones es vital. En España, hay algunos ejemplos de ciudades que están impulsando iniciativas de abastecimiento local y de agricultura de cercanía. El reto actualmente para muchos agricultores es el de asumir la carga burocrática para mantener todas las exigencias ambientales.236241246249Reforzar el papel de los productores en la cadena de valor Es preciso reforzar el papel de los productores, en particular de los pequeños productores, en la cadena de valor. A menudo la formación de los precios se hace de arriba abajo, y los productores perciben precios que no remuneran suficientemente su trabajo. Es preciso mejorar la organización y la agrupación de los productores para que ganen capacidad de negociación frente a la distribución y los demás agentes de la cadena, y es preciso dotarse de legislación que proteja a los productores de las prácticas comerciales desleales.236238239240241242246247249251Agricultura familiar Es preciso desarrollar políticas que protejan a la agricultura familiar. Las explotaciones familiares producen más del 80% de los alimentos en el mundo en cuanto al valor. Al mismo tiempo, de los 570 millones de explotaciones agropecuarias que se estiman que existen en el mundo, más de 500 millones se dedican a la agricultura familiar. A pesar de su función como principales contribuyentes a la seguridad alimentaria, especialmente en los países en desarrollo, los pequeños productores son los más afectados por los retos que plantea el desarrollo, ya que suelen carecer de acceso a los recursos naturales y agrícolas, incluida la tierra, a los insumos y a los mercados – también a la información sobre los mercados y los precios, al crédito, a la mejora de las tecnologías, a los servicios de extensión, a la información meteorológica, a los instrumentos de gestión del riesgo, a la protección social, y con un bajo poder de negociación en las relaciones económicas y políticas. El Objetivo del Decenio de la Agricultura Familiar es movilizar acciones concretas y coordinadas para superar estos desafíos que enfrentan los agricultores familiares, para lo cual, cuenta con un Plan de Acción Mundial.236238239240241242244246247249251La interacciones entre los territorios Es necesario reconocer las interacciones y las relaciones que hay entre los sistemas alimentarios, los territorios, y los ecosistemas, que afectan a la sociedad entera. Los trabajadores del medio rural están sometidos a presiones cada vez mayores; no solo ambientales, sino por políticas económicas y sociales. Por ello es de vital importancia apoyar la agricultura familiar, a los pueblos indígenas y sobre todo el territorio rural y las ciudades pequeñas, ya que aquí viven el 70% de la población mundial, donde se produce la mayoría de los alimentos y donde las políticas públicas nacionales e internacionales han de detenerse para lograr un desarrollo sostenible, la eliminación del hambre y de la malnutrición y la creación de territorios prósperos. España tiene un importante problema de despoblación del medio rural. Es esencial impulsar un nuevo contrato social rural-urbano, para lo cual las zonas rurales han de ser pobladas de nuevo, des-homogeneizar la visión del mundo rural, evitar la segregación de espacios, consolidar redes de actores y de participación pública, evitar las externalidades dañinas y aplicar enfoques de políticas públicas más territoriales. El programa LEADER en Europa, que llevan más de 30 años construyendo territorio y fomentado el desarrollo rural, ha tenido lecciones muy positivas.

2021-06-10 10:16:04205Stage 3https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/15765/92

251122810618382141111918

Recognizing the utmost urgency to take sustained and meaningful action to meet the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals, the dialogues are organized to identify the pathways to food systems transformation. We are committed to practicing what we preach in contribution to the Food Systems Summit. The dialogues empower stakeholders to participate in the preparations of the Food Systems Summit, while fostering new connections, enabling the emergence of new ways to move forward collectively and embracing the entire scope of opinions. Within our capacity and circumstances, we will promote food production and consumption policies and practices that strive to protect and improve the health and the well-being of individuals, enhance resilient livelihoods and communities, and promote stewardship of natural resources, while respecting local cultures and contexts. Respecting one another is the foundation for a genuine Dialogue. Participants in the Dialogues are expected to be attentive and open to a multitude of opinions. We recognize that food systems are complex, and are closely connected to, and significantly impacting human and animal health, natural resources, climate change, biodiversity and other related systems. Therefore, their transformation requires a systemic approach.Dialogues are an opportunity to embrace the complexity of food systems. They promote a systemic approach by involving multiple stakeholders to identify actions across the system together with potential synergies and trade-offs. We support inclusive multi-stakeholder processes and approaches within governments and communities to allow for the design of policy options that deliver against multiple public goods across these various systems. The Dialogues bring to the table a diversity of stakeholders across the food system. They are inclusive and strive to showcase as many voices as possible, capturing diverse cultural, professional and gender specific perspectives. Recognizing that issues related to food systems are being addressed through several other global governance processes, we will seek to ensure that the Food Systems Summit aligns with these efforts where possible in order to avoid duplication, while encouraging bold and innovative new thinking and approaches. The Dialogues build on and add value to existing policy processes and initiatives. They provide an opportunity to share promising innovations, connect stakeholders, and broaden partnerships to transform food systems for the common good. We will work to ensure that the Summit and its associated engagement process promotes trust and increases motivation to participate by being evidence-based, transparent, and accessible. The Dialogues are curated and facilitated in a way which creates a “safe space” and promotes trust, encouraging mutual respect. The conclusions emerging from the Dialogues that are shared in the feedback and other media are not attributed to single individuals.

Yes

234238239240242243244245246248249Our dialogue's focus was a comprehensive exploration of sustainable plant food systems, with a focus on the agricultural sector. The FAO defines a sustainable food system as a "food system that delivers food security and nutrition for all in such a way that the economic, social and environmental bases to generate food security and nutrition for future generations are not compromised". A food system incorporates many aspects, our dialogue focused on various aspects relevant to a sustainable plant food system: 1) Domestic production (quantity and composition); 2) Means of production; 3) Productivity improvement, 4) Sustainable plant production; and 5) Production profitability. Each topic was discussed separately in a round table format. The emphasis of the first dialogue was to identify and define the major challenges in each field.235238239240242243244245246248249250The main findings that emerged from the plant food systems dialogues included challenges related to the supply of production factors (land, water and workers), use of pesticides and fertilizers, climate change, food security, R&D, knowledge transfer, adoption of technologies to raise productivity, marketing, policy and regulatory tools regarding the status of agriculture, waste management, the position regarding imports/local production. Detailed explanation of each category: 1. Supply of production factors: a) Water – high water prices and not enough subsidization for infrastructure development, a lack of information regarding the long-term implications of the use of recycled wastewater. b) Land – limited area available for agriculture, contraction of agricultural area resulting from an increase in other land uses, need to update legislation (e.g. there is no law to encourage agriculture in Israel, absence of definition of "agriculture" in planning and building law, outdated "settlement law"). c) Workers - restricted number of foreign workers along with the fact that most Israelis do not want to do manual work in agriculture creates a shortage of workers. Seasonality of production, administrative allocation and limitations on mobility of foreign workers among farmers result in a suboptimal allocation. 2. Farmers: lack of generational renewal 3. Research and Development, Knowledge transfer – Ensure public agricultural extension, Implementation of research results, ensure budget for agricultural R&D, collaboration with start-up companies. 4. Pesticides and fertilizers – lack of effective environmentally friendly pesticides. Part of fertilizers and pesticides are imported, leading to a possibility of shortage; negative environmental impacts resulting from the extensive use of pesticides and fertilizers due to the prevailing climatic conditions and ground structure in the country; frictions with the urban sector and nature. 5. Climate changes – lack of knowledge regarding climate change and its effect on different crops, development of climate change policy for agricultural sector and sufficient investment for climate change adaptation, supplying the necessary information to farmers about tools for adaption and crops that can be grown. 6. Uncertainty of farming in Israel: increased variability of yields resulting from climate change, frequent policy changes increase uncertainty for farmers. 7. Technologies – difficulties in improving and adopting new agricultural technologies. Technologies to reduce food waste. There is a need to improve soil fertility. In recent years, the productivity of the agricultural sector declined – it is necessary to understand the causes and increase productivity. 8. Food security – providing the economic, social and environmental conditions to generate food security and healthy nutrition for the local population. Ensuring that agriculture in Israel is profitable for farmers. Domestic agricultural production is stagnating in recent years. We need to be prepared for future scenarios in which domestic agriculture will need to increase its production substantially: population growth, change in nutrition habits, climate change and emergency situations. The challenge is to create the conditions that will enable the agricultural sector to supply the food necessary in the light of future scenarios. The growing Palestinian population should be accounted for as well. 9. Marketing – coping with aggressive marketing of ultra-processed food. There is a need to ensure profitability of food production in Israel. Steady supply of raw material to the food industry. 10. Policies – Ministries need to collaborate in order to establish a holistic and sustainable policy for the food system with clear long-term objectives. Disagreements about objectives and policy instruments (e.g. importance of agriculture, subsidies). There is a need for long-term policy objectives for the agricultural sector. Differences in requirements for imported and domestic agricultural products. 11. Agricultural waste management – food losses and waste, waste resulting from surplus production, developing an alternative for plastic, creating a standard for compost. 12. Conflicts between environment and agriculture, e.g. overlap of wildlife corridors and agricultural land. Need to find balance between nature and agriculture. Not enough incentives for farmers to use sustainable agriculture. 13. Barriers to the development of urban agriculture236The first dialogue focused on the challenges that are to be address. The challenges are detailed in the "Main Findings" section.2372382392462491. Some participants attributed the lack of technological advances to the availability of foreign workers, while others stated that there are not enough foreign workers. 2. The importance of domestic supply for providing food security in the future in times of climate change and population growth, vs. the importance of imports (is it necessary to protect domestic agricultural production by custom duties to ensure present and future supply of fresh domestic products, or should import restrictions be abolished in order to ensure food supply in Israel and decrease food prices) 3. The importance of agriculture in providing public goods.

2021-06-10 10:27:44205Stage 3https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/15798/92

Recognizing the utmost urgency to take sustained and meaningful action to meet the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals, the dialogues are organized to identify the pathways to food systems transformation. We are committed to practicing what we preach in contribution to the Food Systems Summit. The dialogues empower stakeholders to participate in the preparations of the Food Systems Summit, while fostering new connections, enabling the emergence of new ways to move forward collectively and embracing the entire scope of opinions. Within our capacity and circumstances, we will promote food production and consumption policies and practices that strive to protect and improve the health and the well-being of individuals, enhance resilient livelihoods and communities, and promote stewardship of natural resources, while respecting local cultures and contexts. Respecting one another is the foundation for a genuine Dialogue. Participants in the Dialogues are expected to be attentive and open to a multitude of opinions. We recognize that food systems are complex, and are closely connected to, and significantly impacting human and animal health, natural resources, climate change, biodiversity and other related systems. Therefore, their transformation requires a systemic approach.Dialogues are an opportunity to embrace the complexity of food systems. They promote a systemic approach by involving multiple stakeholders to identify actions across the system together with potential synergies and trade-offs. We support inclusive multi-stakeholder processes and approaches within governments and communities to allow for the design of policy options that deliver against multiple public goods across these various systems. The Dialogues bring to the table a diversity of stakeholders across the food system. They are inclusive and strive to showcase as many voices as possible, capturing diverse cultural, professional and gender specific perspectives. Recognizing that issues related to food systems are being addressed through several other global governance processes, we will seek to ensure that the Food Systems Summit aligns with these efforts where possible in order to avoid duplication, while encouraging bold and innovative new thinking and approaches. The Dialogues build on and add value to existing policy processes and initiatives. They provide an opportunity to share promising innovations, connect stakeholders, and broaden partnerships to transform food systems for the common good. We will work to ensure that the Summit and its associated engagement process promotes trust and increases motivation to participate by being evidence-based, transparent, and accessible. The Dialogues are curated and facilitated in a way which creates a “safe space” and promotes trust, encouraging mutual respect. The conclusions emerging from the Dialogues that are shared in the feedback and other media are not attributed to single individuals.

Yes

234The focus of the dialogue was: urban food systems, food security, food industry, food waste and food loss and communication and social media. Urban food systems: Discussed the importance of cities integrating most of the SDG’s, as well as a chance to concomitantly address the need for behavioral change through education and social marketing, and regulatory change through local government. Food security: The dialogue focused on exploring and identifying the policy challenges that Israel faces in achieving Sustainable Food Security, primarily from the perspective relevant to various government agencies (Health, Welfare, Community Resilience, Agriculture, Finance, Defense), with input from academicians and NGOs. Communication and social media: Discussed how different approaches to change food preferences through communication and social media. Food waste and food loss: Focused on the main challenges and/or barriers to reducing food waste? Food industry: Promotion of healthy food and reducing nutrition related diseases facing the food industry challenges235Urban food systems: 1. We discovered the need to address the challenges faced by the different sectors of population in the city, of varying socio-economic levels, and defined by diverse religious, ethnic and cultural characteristics. 2. There is a need to look beyond the city’s boundary, and include the peri-urban agricultural areas in the local food system. It may not be possible for the city to achieve food security on its own, but this should be a feasible goal at the regional level. Food security 1. The overarching challenge identified by this dialog was for the government to shoulder the responsibility for planning, appropriating and regulating a coordinated national food security policy. 2. Food insecurity is an Israeli national security concern. 3. Climate change and water scarcity are projected to increase, potentially contributing to regional instability. 4. Fragmentation: different ministries and agencies, with different, often conflicting priorities and little coordination between them, regulate different aspects of the food system. 5. Solutions are aimed at long-term policies to increase workforce participation and earning power of poor populations, and there are minimal benefits or food aid. 6. The government does not appropriate any significant assistance for alleviating food insecurity nor does it take responsibility for the food insecure population. Communication and social media: • Complexity: The overall issue of sustainable food systems is complex, appears distant, has an image that it is mainly relevant to those who are privileged • Diversity: Challenges need to be articulated and focused on diversity among and within different population groups, and identifying those which do not correspond to healthier and more sustainable food consumption. • Cost and current lifestyle: Economic cost and the convenience of processed foods in a hurried and pressured lifestyle serve as major barriers to healthier and more sustainable food consumption, in particular among groups with low income. • Media: competition with other issues considered more urgent, and journalists that consider it as controversial and attempt to present “both sides.” • Competition and disinformation: Commercial marketing of food products confuses and obfuscates the issue of healthy and sustainable foods by misleading advertising or emphasizing micronutrients, thus diverting attention from non-nutritious or non-sustainable elements. Food waste and food loss: • Significant knowledge gaps - The lack of empirical data and continuous measurement make it difficult to manage the challenge nor to set a coherent policy • The Price Marking Order requires that any goods offered for sale must have their price clearly indicated. This requirement constitutes a significant barrier to the transition to dynamic pricing • Technological gaps might constitutes a significant barrier to the implementation of dynamic pricing in retail networks Food industry: 1. Finding the balance between local agriculture and local production versus import. National food security depends on food independency. 2. Food Waste - Reducing consumer and manufacturer waste 3. Lack of manpower in the food industry 4. The need of Strengthening small and medium-sized industry, strengthening community-oriented industry 5. Reducing the Environmental Footprint of Industry - Providing tools, infrastructure, and goals for the development of fossil fuel free industry, and circular economy236Urban food systems: • The goal of rescuing food is an urban challenge that can both help feed the urban poor, prevent unnecessary dumping, and generate reciprocity among the diverse urban communities. • Urban planning and management must factor into their system the need for access to fresh and healthy food within neighborhoods. • Urban food growing, until now focused on educational and community goals, should undertake the challenge of effective production of greens and fruit-bearing trees in the city. This will require regulatory measures • To address these challenges and to achieve these targets, cities must work together as a network with shared goals, to generate the push needed for regulatory change, which will require approval at the government level. Food security The Topic Outcomes included and urgent need to: 1) Define food security broadly, and consider it a national government priority, for social resilience and domestic and national security 2) Enhance governance, by creating an overarching, integrated, inter-ministerial policy review to develop a food systems master plan to ensure food security in its broad definition. 3) Define outcome measures and targets, assign responsibility for monitoring, formative and evaluative research 4) Develop a master plan for Israeli agriculture taking into consideration sustainability, climate change threats, economic planning 5) Expand economic policy to correct market failures and to accommodate agriculture and health outcomes, to achieve food availability and prices that will contribute to achieving targets for reducing the prevalence of food insecurity and improving the nation's diet and health and environment. Communication and social media:  Identifying socio-cultural and economic barriers and potential solutions for diverse groups within and across populations.  Reframing the issue as one that concerns all and not only privileged groups  Raising the issue in the media and creating engagement and discourse.  Addressing information gaps.  Addressing misinformation and disinformation from public and commercial sources. Food waste and food loss: • Lack of national food waste reduction goals and policies, and as a result lack of success indicators • The lack of governmental budget leaves the challenge of food rescue in the hands of local NGOs • Lack of consistent policy for organic waste management that leads to unreasonable allocation of resources (institutional / commercial versus domestic food waste) • Lack of synchronization between local government and central government Food industry: 1. Regulation: contradicting regulations of different authorities or ministries, contradicting requirements and rapid changes. 2. The challenge of forming multi-sectoral collaborations to achieve the DSGs goals. 3. Designated budget for public research on food and health impacts, including novel foods. 4. The need of balancing between economic needs, public health, the environment and the community237Food security: Should food security be defined broadly or should emergency food insecurity remain defined separately as a poverty issue? Should food insecurity policy focus on welfare and benefits or on poverty reduction measures that emphasize increasing employment (purchasing power) rather than dealing with the high price of nutritious food and health (food system policy addressing market failures, agriculture production, food subsidies, imports, etc( How should food insecurity be measured and targets for policy defined? By subjective measures such as the USDA questionnaire or by econometric criteria? How should health outcomes be factored in? Communication and social media: There were disagreements regarding the potential role of the food industry and concerns about its role in advancing more sustainable alternatives and the way it would promote them. Food industry: Definition of ultra-processed and harmful food

2021-06-10 10:28:26205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/15810/92

45029102964112712408112

Yes

234238239Implementation guidelines for healthy and sustainable diet policy235The following challenges were identified: • Lack of public awareness to consume a safe, healthy and less –ultra-processed diet, and the connection to sustainability. • The industry still has place for improvement regarding the development of healthier foods, and sustainable food reformulation and packaging. • Data regarding public exposure, especially in susceptible populations, to foodstuff and dietary patterns is incomplete and biomonitoring data is limited. Government official controls should rely on data to better adjust enforcement measures to the level of risk. • There are limited government resources available to enhance food and nutritional data collections and research regarding epidemiology and intervention studies, including with the academia at the local population levels, in order to establish evidence-based nutrition policy. Currently, most of the available data is based on studies carried out by commercial stakeholders. • The ultra-processed foods are more attractive to the general population, in comparison to fresh foods, for various reasons including lack of nutritional education and lack of economic incentives. • Foods for people with special nutritional needs (such as allergies, non-communicable diseases) is expensive and not always accessible. • Heterogenic populations are exposed to different advertisements for unhealthy foods, including foreign, digital, and specifically targeted messages. Low SES populations are more exposed to the harmful advertisements. • Incorporation of nutrition guidelines through the life cycle faces a few challenges, according to age groups such as the first 1000 days of life, teenagers and the elderly each having their own nutritional needs and challenges. Immigrants, ethnicity-affiliation, religious group and populations in transition, may be affected by malnutrition and therefore are more vulnerable. • Currently, there is no significant nutrition education in the school curricula. There is a need for regulations voluntary nutrition education does not work. • Integrating nutritional education and better health literacy as an integral part of the education system in Israel, focusing on the young ages and various socio-economic strata. • Regulation is non-harmonized, and is addressed by several regulators, each with different requirements. Laboratory testing methods are not always available or optimal in terms of costs and response time. • There is not always an economic justification for developing analytical methods and government laboratories lack the necessary resources to enable them to serve as reference laboratories. • The geographic location of Israel makes it a wild-animals migration hub and therefore more susceptible to zoonotic diseases. • Education regarding the use of packaging and public awareness of sustainability and recycling of packages and single-use-utensils is insufficient. • Healthy sustainable food systems in institutions, companies and local authorities are necessary. There is a need for professional nutritional experts as leaders and for training the workers in the field. • Harmonizing and keeping the food chain safe, healthy, and suitable to the needs of the clients and consumers, in light of quality control. • There is a need to minimize food waste and use of disposable packaging and utensils, through education, and training for sustainable food purchase. • Optimization of development of alternative protein sources and their production, so as to imitate the conventional products and to make them available and accessible to the general public without compromising health and sustainable aspects. • The Government has limited resources to keep up with the rapid development of the food tech taking into consideration the lack of international guidelines and standards. • Local authorities are varied by the level of awareness, budgets and availability of professional experts in nutrition and strategy to implement healthy nutrition in all policies, which result in poor implementation of healthy nutrition strategy. • There are no dedicated defined units responsible for public health within the local municipalities.237• There is inherent tension between the industry's desire to adopt international regulation (EU, US) "as-is" and the responsibility of the regulator to adjust the regulation to the unique circumstances of the country. • There is a contradiction between the need for food safety and longer shelf life and attractive coloring and taste and the need for cleaner labelling. • There is a discrepancy between the right of the consumer to transparency and the limitation of the labelling. • Lack of unanimously accepted definition of ultra-processed food and harmful foods. • The regulator is obliged to prevent additional exposure to unhealthy foods by limiting the industry and the television programs and advertising that encourages unhealthy eating. This should be managed by regulation, whereas the industry prefers pledges/voluntary charters. • There is a need to add health score symbols on the packaging like carcinogenic etc. • There is a need to maintain and enhance the Israeli agriculture from the food security perspective and sustainability in light of the SDG's, and to favor local production over imported foods, despite of lower cost effectiveness. • Who takes the responsibility over the food health risk factors communication; Government, industry, the public? • There is abandonment of traditional eating and use of local crops due to globalization and modernization. • Sustainable packaging and recycling. There is no incentive for the industry to use sustainable packaging, nor to recycle, and excessive packaging is still common. • While several stakeholders proposed the implementation of stricter regulation and enforcement, others suggested adopting a looser strategy relying on the responsibility of the manufacturer/importer. Currently, official controls are partially relying on self-declarations but when analyzed the products might not meet the regulatory requirements. • Lack of food quality and subjective parameters in food tenders regarding nutritional quality, technology, taste and requirement for better equipment in institutional kitchen facilities. • There are disagreements on the need to replace protein of animal origin with plant-based protein. • Disagreement between governmental ministries regarding the need to establish a healthy “food basket” with a fixed price including subsidies. • There is a need to ensure that highly nutritious and appealing foods are served in "dining rooms" at schools lunch-program, these being foods that the children will enjoy eating, without compromising on food safety and quality. • There is a need for every school to have dining rooms in order to encourage good nutritional habits in early stages of life. • On the one hand Israel is currently leading the development of alternative protein technologies while on the other hand there are not enough resources to make the shift to large scale production. • Gap between policies and implementation: although there are basic Nutritional Policies for healthy eating in educational institutes, there is a gap between policy and implementation and a lack of human resources and awareness regarding the existing policies.

2021-06-10 11:40:02205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/17668/172

3200341611022301411718252711193922212654323966229311831324239123113437154

Se ha dado amplia difusión al proceso de la Cumbre y a los Diálogos a través de: - envíos masivos de correos con información de la Cumbre, actividades y eventos relacionados, a más de 600 entidades e individuos interesados - un sitio Web de la Cumbre https://www.mapa.gob.es/es/ministerio/ministerio-exterior/cumbre-un-sistemas-alimentarios/ - un buzón de participación bzn-dialogos@mapa.es - amplia difusión de los diálogos en redes socialesEl Diálogo ha sido totalmente abierto en la participación, y en particular se ha fomentado la presencia de diversos grupos de interés

Yes

234240241242243244245246248249251Una revisión de la situación de los sistemas alimentarios en España, con especial atención al papel de la innovación y el progreso técnico, así como de la reorientación de los incentivos públicos hacia la sostenibilidad de los sistemas.235240241242244245246248249251La sostenibilidad de los sistemas alimentarios debe ser plena para poder ser posible: ambiental, social y económica. Es fundamental no descuidar ninguna de estas tres facetas para no dejar a nadie atrás. Al tiempo que se transita hacia la plena sostenibilidad de los sistemas alimentarios, se constata que se necesitará alimentar a una población creciente, y para ello la producción deberá crecer en 2050 entre un 60 y un 70%. Se constata también que, con las actuales tecnologías, muchas de las soluciones hacia producciones sostenibles implican una bajada de la productividad. Por lo tanto, se estima que sólo a través del progreso técnico y la innovación será posible avanzar simultáneamente en las tres facetas de la sostenibilidad. Para ello, será precisa una mayor coordinación entre los diferentes actores, públicos y privados, en el campo de la innovación; se necesitará incrementar sensiblemente las inversiones en este campo, y será preciso poner en marcha mecanismos que aseguren que las soluciones innovadoras son accesibles a todos los actores de la cadena, y que todos se benefician de ellas, incluidos los pequeños agricultores y la agricultura familiar.236240241244245246249251Las repercusiones de la transformación de los sistemas alimentarios. Es necesario adoptar un Compromiso firme para hacer que los Sistemas Alimentarios sean plenamente sostenibles en su triple vertiente: ambiental, social y económica. Los avances hacia la plena sostenibilidad tendrán en cuenta en todo momento esta triple faceta, ya que los sistemas no podrán ser plenamente sostenibles si alguna de ellas no es tenida en cuenta apropiadamente. Esto implica que los avances hacia métodos de producción, de transporte, distribución, transformación, consumo y gestión de residuos con menor impacto ambiental deberán tener en cuenta la necesidad de seguir incrementando la producción de alimentos para responder a las necesidades de una población creciente, y deberán proporcionar medios de vida dignos a todos los integrantes de la cadena, con especial atención a los más vulnerables, así como alimentos seguros, sanos y asequibles a toda la población.236240242243244246Prioridades para lograr la plena sostenibilidad ambiental Los Sistemas Alimentarios deben seguir reduciendo su impacto ambiental en diferentes áreas: a) Lucha contra el cambio climático, en la doble vertiente de mitigación y adaptación. España es un país muy afectado por las consecuencias negativas del cambio climático, y el sector agroalimentario debe reducir sus emisiones y actuar como captador de carbono. Igualmente debe reforzar los instrumentos de adaptación al cambio climático. En el ámbito de la mitigación se propone el fomento de acciones tendentes a reducir las emisiones y a aumentar la captura de carbono en los suelos, tales como: • Descarbonizar el transporte de alimentos, ya que es el responsable del 9,6% de las emisiones totales en nuestro país. • Fomento de la ganadería extensiva y la conservación de los pastizales. • Fomento de prácticas agrarias que favorezcan el mantenimiento de la cobertura vegetal, y la reincorporación al suelo de los restos orgánicos de las labores agrarias. • Mejorar la eficiencia de la producción para reducir el uso de insumos y de energía. Los cultivos intensivos como los invernaderos que utilizan luz solar como fuente de energía son un buen ejemplo de eficiencia productiva siendo además sumidero de carbono. • Mejorar la gestión de residuos de las explotaciones ganaderas, reduciendo las pérdidas de metano y de amoníaco y reduciendo indirectamente el uso de fertilizantes de síntesis. • Evitar la deforestación. No se identifica como un problema en el territorio nacional, donde la superficie forestal de la actualidad ha aumentado respecto a la existente a principios del siglo XX, sino de forma indirecta en los países de origen de las importaciones agrarias. En el ámbito de la adaptación se propone: • Investigación y transferencia de conocimiento, que asegure un correcto asesoramiento al sector agrario de las mejores prácticas culturales, variedades vegetales y cultivos adaptados, en el actual escenario de cambio. • Conservación y fomento de razas autóctonas de ganado y de variedades vegetales locales. Mejora, creación y mantenimiento de bancos de germoplasma. • Fomento y apoyo a las herramientas financieras de gestión de los riesgos meteorológicos, especialmente de los sistemas de seguros agrarios. b) Mejorar la gestión del agua, reduciendo su consumo, aumentando la eficiencia de su utilización, y evitando la contaminación de los acuíferos. Es preciso reconocer que la producción de alimentos para una población creciente requerirá seguir utilizando una elevada proporción del agua disponible a este fin, pero existe margen para aumentar la producción sin ejercer más presión sobre el recurso. Para ello será necesario: • Adoptar planes de gestión de las cuencas hidrográficas que permitan evitar la sobreexplotación, • Adoptar medidas de protección de las franjas de terrenos que ejercen de tampón de las cuencas fluviales, • Reducir el consumo de agua en los regadíos mediante su modernización para evitar las pérdidas de agua y mejorar la eficiencia en el consumo de agua y la energía a través de la generalización de las técnicas de riego localizado y la adopción de nuevas tecnologías de precisión y digitales en su aplicación. • Evitar la contaminación de los acuíferos a través de los lixiviados de la producción agraria. • Fomentar la obtención y el uso de variedades capaces de crecer con menos agua y que ofrezcan una mejor adaptación al cambio climático. • Mejorar la formación de los regantes. c) Reducir las pérdidas de nutrientes en la agricultura, reduciendo el uso de fertilizantes de síntesis y mejorando la gestión de los fertilizantes orgánicos. Para ello será preciso: • Fomentar la adopción de técnicas de agricultura de precisión • Fomentar la economía circular en las explotaciones agrícolas y ganaderas • Mejorar la gestión de estiércoles y purines, reduciendo las emisiones de amoníaco y metano. d) Reducir el empleo de pesticidas, en particular de los pesticidas más peligrosos para el medio, y para ello, • Fomentar la gestión integrada de plagas. • Fomentar la agricultura de precisión • Fomentar la investigación y en desarrollo de semillas resistentes a las plagas.236240241242243244246248249Innovación y progreso técnico Se necesita un fuerte impulso a la innovación, al progreso técnico y a la digitalización. Los Sistemas Alimentarios Mundiales deben ser capaces de producir entre un 60 y un 70% más de alimentos en 2050, y ello sin ocupar más tierra, y mientras reducen la presión sobre los recursos naturales. Este reto sólo será posible si se da un fuerte impulso a la innovación y al desarrollo tecnológico para incrementar sensiblemente la eficiencia de la producción, así como de todas las demás etapas de la cadena. Se destaca la importancia de la innovación y el progreso técnico para la reducción de los impactos de los sistemas alimentarios en el medio ambiente. Será necesario incrementar sensiblemente las inversiones en innovación, tanto públicas como privadas, y para ello se apunta la oportunidad que supone el recientemente aprobado Fondo de Recuperación y Resiliencia y la nueva PAC post 2020. Las tecnologías deben permitirnos aumentar la eficiencia de todos los eslabones de la cadena. La producción agraria en España ya es, de acuerdo con las cifras de la FAO, un 30% más eficiente que la media, pero será preciso avanzar mucho más. Algunos ejemplos de tecnologías que será preciso desarrollar con esta finalidad son: • Agricultura de precisión para ajustar los insumos (agua, fertilizantes y pesticidas) a las necesidades de la planta. • La ganadería de precisión en la alimentación del ganado, ajustando la alimentación a las necesidades de cada animal en cada momento, • Desarrollo de aditivos de la alimentación que reduzcan las emisiones de metano y mejoren la eficiencia de la alimentación, • Mejora genética, tanto vegetal como animal, para conseguir plantas y animales mejor adaptados al medio, más eficientes en la producción y que generen menores emisiones. • Desarrollo de nuevas fuentes de proteínas • Desarrollo de técnicas de sensorización e inteligencia artificial En relación con el progreso técnico se hace hincapié en los siguientes aspectos:  La necesidad de poner en marcha mecanismos que aseguren que el progreso técnico es asequible y accesible a las pequeñas explotaciones.  La necesidad de que en los aspectos regulatorios las autoridades se apoyen exclusivamente en la ciencia, evitando que consideraciones políticas o de otra índole limiten el potencial de la innovación y dificulten la transferencia de conocimientos.  En materia de innovación se considera, asimismo, necesario avanzar en la mejora de la posición de los actores de la cadena en los procesos de innovación interactiva, que están ocurriendo a nivel de explotaciones en el sector agroalimentario, y avanzar en la mejora de su coordinación y la mejora de los intercambios de conocimiento a través de herramientas diversas como puede ser una plataforma para el asesoramiento agrario, así como en la valorización y cualificación de los asesores agrarios y su trabajo236240241244246249La sostenibilidad de la pesca y de la acuicultura La sostenibilidad de la pesca y de la acuicultura es un objetivo en el que el sector pesquero español lleva décadas trabajando, abordando el problema de la sobrecapacidad, ajustando el esfuerzo de pesca, regulando la actividad, y mejorando el control de las actividades pesqueras. Es un sector con un elevado grado de apertura internacional, y se identifica la necesidad de evitar la competencia desleal en los mercados de los productos obtenidos sin respetar los mínimos estándares en materia de conservación así como de los estándares sociolaborales. Para ello, se han formulado las siguientes propuestas: a) Es necesario mejorar la gobernanza global de la pesca, fortaleciendo las instituciones internacionales de gestión de los recursos pesqueros para eliminar la pesca ilegal, no declarada y no reglamentada. b) Es necesario asegurar que todas las flotas pesqueras cumplen los estándares mínimos de requisitos sociolaborales de los trabajadores, y que se cumplen las condiciones de seguridad y bienestar a bordo. Los productos que acceden a los mercados europeos deberían cumplir estos requisitos para que no exista competencia desleal con las producciones europeas. c) Se debe favorecer la implantación de etiquetados que informen al consumidor acerca del cumplimiento de las condiciones de pesca responsable y de respeto a las condiciones de trabajo. Se ha puesto el ejemplo del etiquetado “Atún de pesca responsable” de la flota atunera española.236241242246249251Acceso a los mercados Es necesario mejorar el acceso de los productores a los mercados, en particular de los pequeños productores. Para ello, se deben fomentar los mercados de proximidad, que permiten acercar las producciones a los consumidores y que éstos puedan capturar una mayor proporción del valor del producto. También es preciso reconocer el papel que el comercio internacional tiene para los sistemas alimentarios. Así mismo, los mercados internacionales debe ser accesibles a los pequeños productores, con reglas del comercio acordadas en la Organización Mundial del Comercio. Los mercados de proximidad y los mercados internacionales no son excluyentes, son complementarios, y ambos son fundamentales para asegurar la sostenibilidad y la resiliencia de los sistemas alimentarios. Es necesario que las reglas del comercio internacional incorporen requisitos de carácter ambiental que limiten el comercio de productos que no respeten unos mínimos estándares ambientales, ejerciendo con ello una competencia desleal sobre las producciones locales.236239240244246249251Potenciar el papel de los consumidores Con su capacidad para elegir, los consumidores juegan un importante papel en la orientación de la producción hacia métodos más sostenibles y resilientes. Es preciso eliminar los frenos que están evitando que los consumidores puedan tener mayor protagonismo en esta transformación. La mayor parte de los consumidores elegirían productos más sostenibles vinculados a certificaciones medioambientales o de calidad, incluso si eso exigiera un mayor esfuerzo económico, pero se necesita más información, con mensajes claros, objetivos, veraces y transparentes.236240241242244245246249El papel de la reorientación de los incentivos públicos La reorientación de los incentivos públicos puede hacer que éstos se conviertan en un importante motor para lograr sistemas alimentarios sostenibles. En España se está procediendo a esta reorientación con dos instrumentos fundamentales: La Política Agraria Común y los Fondos del Mecanismo de Recuperación y Resiliencia. Las ayudas de la PAC hace ya años que incentivan la producción sostenible. En el nuevo período de programación que ahora se está preparando, se cambia el enfoque para poner el punto de mira en la consecución de resultados, a través de la elaboración de un Plan Estratégico. Las ayudas directas a la renta se destinarán a los agricultores que cumplan con las normas de conservación del medio ambiente y de bienestar animal a través de la denominada condicionalidad reforzada, y se diseñan nuevos incentivos, los ecoesquemas, para añadir un incentivo adicional a aquellos agricultores y ganaderos que asuman un mayor compromiso ambiental. En conjunto, al menos un 40% del presupuesto de la PAC se destinará a acciones que mejoren la sostenibilidad de las producciones. Los fondos del Mecanismo de Recuperación y Resiliencia se destinarán en un elevado porcentaje a promover acciones que fomenten la sostenibilidad: ahorro de agua, energías limpias, economía circular, reutilización de residuos, agricultura de precisión y mejora de la bioseguridad. Es necesario además evitar los incentivos que promuevan prácticas negativas para el medio ambiente, y fomentar una fiscalidad más favorable para las prácticas positivas para el medio ambiente.236238239241242246247249251Nadie debe quedar atrás Las políticas públicas para la transformación de los sistemas alimentarios deberán prestar una especial atención a los colectivos sociales más vulnerables: a) Es necesario que las políticas públicas tengan especialmente en cuenta la agricultura familiar, por su papel en el abastecimiento de alimentos y en el cuidado del medio, así como para el equilibrio territorial. Igualmente es necesario mejorar la percepción que la sociedad tiene de los agricultores y ganaderos, reivindicando el indispensable papel que desempeñan. b) Es preciso tener especialmente en cuenta a las mujeres y los jóvenes, logrando la igualdad de género y eliminando posibles barreras socioeconómicas. Se debe contribuir a capacitar a ambos colectivos, dado que son claves para transformar los sistemas alimentarios Son los colectivos que presentan una mayor apertura a las innovaciones y los que más invierten, y además son colectivos clave para frenar el fenómeno del despoblamiento del medio rural. c) Se deberán poner en marcha mecanismos de protección social para evitar la denominada pobreza alimentaria, por la cual determinados colectivos no tienen acceso a una alimentación saludable. Es preciso abordar la mayor incidencia de la malnutrición, y en particular de la obesidad entre los colectivos más desfavorecidos.

2021-06-10 12:24:50205https://summitdialogues.org/dialogue/21873/92

9345029102964112712408112